RESPONSE BIOMEDICAL CORP RBM (last ticker on record)
CIK 806888Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Restatement
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
These figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.
- Red flags
- 1
- Newest began Mar 2012
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 5
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 4
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.
Law firms
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Stikeman ElliottFirst linked Jun 2016 · Named in SEC correspondence · 225 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.08× · Went dark 0.11× · 95% wipeout 1.06×
- Blake Cassels & GraydonFirst linked Jun 2013 · Named in SEC correspondence · 227 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.73× · Went dark 0.49× · 95% wipeout 0.80×
- McCarthy TetraultFirst linked Aug 2012 · Named in a filing · 111 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.76× · Went dark 0.57× · 95% wipeout 1.41×
- Borden Ladner Gervais LLPFirst linked May 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 78 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.46× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.25×
- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiFirst linked Mar 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 1,468 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.09× · Went dark 0.60× · 95% wipeout 1.42×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stikeman Elliott | Jun 2016 | Named in SEC correspondence | 225 | 1.08 | 0.11 | 1.06 |
| Blake Cassels & Graydon | Jun 2013 | Named in SEC correspondence | 227 | 0.73 | 0.49 | 0.80 |
| McCarthy Tetrault | Aug 2012 | Named in a filing | 111 | 0.76 | 0.57 | 1.41 |
| Borden Ladner Gervais LLP | May 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 78 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 1.25 |
| Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Mar 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 1,468 | 1.09 | 0.60 | 1.42 |
Lawyers
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Dan HorwoodWilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiFirst linked Jul 2016 · Named in SEC correspondence · 6 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 3.83× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 2.43×
- Martin J. WatersWilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiFirst linked Jun 2016 · Named in SEC correspondence · 24 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.91× · Went dark 0.88× · 95% wipeout 2.49×
- Joseph GarciaBlake Cassels & GraydonFirst linked Nov 2014 · Named in SEC correspondence · 10 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.00× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.50×
- Anthony G. MaurielloWilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiFirst linked May 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 8 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.15× · Went dark 1.75× · 95% wipeout 1.74×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dan HorwoodWilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Jul 2016 | Named in SEC correspondence | 6 | 3.83 | 0.00 | 2.43 |
| Martin J. WatersWilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Jun 2016 | Named in SEC correspondence | 24 | 1.91 | 0.88 | 2.49 |
| Joseph GarciaBlake Cassels & Graydon | Nov 2014 | Named in SEC correspondence | 10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.50 |
| Anthony G. MaurielloWilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | May 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 8 | 1.15 | 1.75 | 1.74 |