Virtual Interactive Technologies’ SEC reporting trail stops at a Form 10-Q covering the period ended June 30, 2024, according to an enforcement order issued more than two years later.

The company, known by the ticker VRVR, is a Nevada corporation based in Denver, Colorado. Its securities are registered with the SEC under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act. The order also says unsolicited quotations for its common stock are submitted through OTC Link ATS.

That combination matters. A security can remain visible in an over-the-counter quotation system while the company information investors would normally use to evaluate it becomes stale. The order provides no trading volume, price, shareholder count, or evidence of investor losses. What it does document is the Enforcement Division’s claim that required reporting stopped.

The missing reports are the central issue

Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and the rules cited in the order require registered issuers to provide current and accurate information through periodic reports. Rule 13a-1 covers annual reports. Rule 13a-13 covers quarterly reports for domestic issuers.

The duty applies even when a company voluntarily registered its securities under Section 12(g), the Commission said. Registration brings an ongoing disclosure obligation, not a one-time filing requirement.

VRVR has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2024.

SEC Enforcement Division allegation, Exchange Act Release No. 106454

If sustained, that allegation means the public filing record described by the SEC lacks later annual and quarterly updates. Those reports typically provide the recurring financial and operational information that federal securities rules require from registered issuers. The order does not say that VRVR filed false information. It alleges that the company failed to file the required reports at all.

A warning letter may not have reached the company

The order describes two possible explanations for what happened after the filing delinquency emerged. The Enforcement Division alleges that VRVR either failed to heed a letter from the Division of Corporation Finance requesting compliance, or did not receive the letter because it failed to keep a valid address on file as SEC rules require.

The document does not resolve which of those alternatives occurred. It does not state when the letter was sent, where it was sent, or whether anyone at the company saw it. That distinction may matter to the factual record, but neither scenario answers the underlying allegation that the required reports remained unfiled.

How a filing gap became a registration case

The enforcement path is direct. Registration creates recurring reporting duties. The alleged failure to meet those duties led the SEC to invoke a process that can place the registration itself at risk.

The practical issue is not simply missed paperwork. Periodic reports are the disclosure mechanism that gives investors recurring access to company information. When the reports stop, the filing record ages while quotations may continue to appear. The supplied order does not establish that anyone traded because of outdated information or suffered a loss. It identifies the lack of current reporting as an investor-protection concern.

The proceeding is not a verdict

The Commission will use the proceeding to decide whether the Enforcement Division’s allegations are true and to give VRVR an opportunity to present defenses. That distinction is essential. Instituting a case does not establish the alleged violations.

The order directs VRVR to answer within ten days after it is served. It also calls for the parties to hold a prehearing conference within fourteen days after service of the answer. A hearing is to be scheduled by a later Commission order.

If VRVR fails to answer or does not appear after proper notice, the company may be found in default. In that situation, the allegations may be treated as true under the SEC rules cited in the order. If the case is contested, the Commission can resolve it after a hearing or through briefing on a dispositive motion.

1. Period ended June 30, 2024 Last periodic report identified

   The order says VRVR’s most recent periodic filing was a Form 10-Q for this reporting period.

2. September 21, 2026 SEC institutes the proceeding

   The order opens a Section 12(j) case to test the allegations and consider remedies.

3. Within 10 days after service VRVR’s answer is due

   The deadline runs from service, not simply from the date printed on the order.

4. To be set by further order Hearing and final decision

   The supplied document provides no hearing date and no final outcome.

What the Commission could do

Section 12(j) allows the Commission to consider suspending the registration of each relevant class of securities for no more than twelve months or revoking the registration. The proceeding also covers qualifying successors and new corporate names under the rules cited in the order.

The order does not impose a trading halt, announce a penalty, or revoke the registration. It asks whether suspension or revocation is necessary and appropriate for investor protection. Conflating that pending question with a completed sanction would overstate the record.

The supplied document also contains no monetary penalty request, restitution calculation, or allegation of fraud. Its focus is narrower: repeated failures to provide the periodic reports required of a registered issuer.

VRVR’s position is absent from this record

The order contains no company answer, denial, admission, explanation, or evidence of corrective filings. It gives VRVR the opportunity to establish defenses, but those defenses are not included in the supplied material.

That leaves several basic questions unanswered. The document does not explain why the reports were not filed, whether the company intends to become current, whether the delinquency letter reached anyone associated with VRVR, or how the company views the requested remedies.

The information gap now has consequences of its own

A reporting lapse can sound administrative until it persists long enough to threaten the registration that created the reporting duty. That is where this case now stands.

The SEC has not yet found the allegations true, and the order documents no investor loss. It does establish that the Commission has escalated the alleged filing gap into a proceeding capable of changing VRVR’s registration status. Until the company answers and the Commission rules, investors have an enforcement allegation, an aging filing record, and no final resolution.