SEC Says CuraScientific Stopped Filing Periodic Reports After 2023

CuraScientific’s last periodic report identified by the SEC covered the quarter ending September 30, 2023. After that, according to the regulator’s Enforcement Division, the required stream of public reports stopped.

The securities registration did not disappear with those reports. The SEC order says CuraScientific remained an issuer with a class of securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act. It also says unsolicited quotations for the company’s common stock were being submitted on OTC Link ATS.

That combination is the heart of the proceeding: a publicly registered issuer, an alleged multiyear disclosure gap, and a stock that continued to have quotations submitted in the over-the-counter market system.

The missing reports are the underlying issue

Companies with securities registered under the Exchange Act must keep regulators and investors supplied with current information. The order identifies two core requirements: Rule 13a-1 requires annual reports, and Rule 13a-13 requires quarterly reports from domestic issuers.

SEC Enforcement alleges CuraScientific repeatedly failed to meet those obligations. The order also describes an unresolved delivery problem. According to the allegation, CuraScientific either failed to heed a delinquency letter from the Division of Corporation Finance or did not receive it because the company failed to maintain a valid address with the Commission.

“CSTF is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission in that it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2023.”

SEC Division of Enforcement allegation in Release No. 106289

1. A registered issuer

   CuraScientific had a class of securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12(g), according to the order.

2. Reports allegedly stop

   Enforcement identifies the September 2023 quarter as the period covered by the company’s last periodic report.

3. Registration put at risk

   The Commission opened a proceeding to consider suspension or revocation after determining whether the allegations are true.

What the evidence establishes, and what it does not

Investors were left without the required reporting stream

Periodic reports are intended to provide current corporate and financial information about registered issuers. When those reports are absent, investors lose the standardized disclosure channel that federal securities rules require the company to maintain.

The order does not identify individual shareholders, quantify losses, describe CuraScientific’s present operations, or establish that anyone traded because of missing information. The documented investor-protection issue is therefore informational rather than a proven financial injury: the Commission says current and accurate periodic disclosure was required, while its Enforcement Division alleges the reports were not filed.

The presence of unsolicited OTC quotations makes that information gap more consequential. It indicates that quotations for CSTF common stock were still being submitted even though the issuer’s periodic disclosures had allegedly become stale. The supplied record does not quantify quotation volume or identify who submitted them.

CuraScientific has not yet been heard in this record

The order does not contain a response, denial, admission, or explanation from CuraScientific. That absence should not be treated as proof that the company has no defense. Instituting the proceeding is the step that gives the respondent an opportunity to contest Enforcement’s account.

CuraScientific was directed to file an answer within ten days after service. The company and Enforcement were then instructed to hold a prehearing conference within fourteen days after service of the answer. A hearing date and location were left for a later Commission order.

If the company fails to answer or appear after proper notice, it may be deemed in default. In that circumstance, the allegations may be treated as true under the Commission’s procedural rules. A default would be a procedural route to a decision, not evidence that this initiating order itself made final factual findings.

The possible outcome is severe, but not decided

Section 12(j) gives the Commission authority to suspend the registration of a class of securities for no more than twelve months or revoke that registration when investor protection warrants it. The proceeding will determine whether either remedy is appropriate for CuraScientific and any covered successor or new corporate name.

The Commission says it will issue a final order after the record is developed through one of several paths: a completed hearing and post-hearing briefing, a ruling on the pleadings or summary disposition when no hearing is necessary, or a default determination.

The unanswered question is whether the reporting gap will be contested

The SEC’s order presents a stark account: a registered issuer allegedly stopped providing periodic reports after the third quarter of 2023, did not resolve the delinquency after a regulatory warning, and now faces the possible loss of its securities registration.

But the order begins the adjudication rather than ending it. The next meaningful evidence will be CuraScientific’s answer, if one is filed, and the record the Commission ultimately accepts. Until then, the filing lapse is a serious regulatory allegation attached to an active OTC-quoted security, not a final finding of liability.