ACQ Streaming is composed of the following individuals:

• Seifuddin "Coach" Henton

• Elder Arellano

• Johnny Giles

These three individuals are attempting to raise capital by taking advantage of unknowledgeable and unaware investors. They do not know the first thing about how to utilize investor funds and worse they are using the funds for personal gain.

They do not have the invested funds and have not been able to pay vendors for supplies and services. They have even gone as far as to charge back vendors because they have misused investor funds.

These individuals should not be trusted for any reason, let alone with your hard earned money.

If you have been a victim of these individuals, you are urged to request an immediate exit and buy out before it is too late. If that doesn’t work contact the SEC and your states securities board immediately.

Report To The SEC Here

Report To Your State Securities Board Here

Legal Issues and Ambiguities:

• Unclear Language: Some language is vague or ambiguous. For example, the use of "non-dilutive equity" might not be legally recognized or understood in the same way by all parties. The document also mentions potential addendums that could modify the agreement, creating uncertainty.

• Lack of Specificity: Certain terms and conditions are left open to negotiation or future determination (e.g., the price for the PEP to sell their equity back to ACQ). This lack of specificity could lead to disputes.

• One-Sided Provisions: Some clauses appear to heavily favor ACQ, such as the broad discretion in the use of funds and the right to amend the agreement without notice. This could raise concerns about fairness and enforceability.

• Assumption of Liability: The document places a significant burden on the PEP to assume all liability and risk, which might not be legally sound or enforceable in all jurisdictions.

• Governing Law: The agreement does not specify the governing law or jurisdiction, which could lead to complications in the event of a dispute.

• Arbitration Clause: While the arbitration clause aims to provide a dispute resolution mechanism, it lacks details about the process and could be challenged.

While Acquired Streaming's commitment to transparency is commendable, there are a few aspects in these disclosures that could potentially raise red flags with the SEC:

1. Use of Funds for Operational Expenditures

• While it's understandable that some raised funds will be used for operational expenses, the SEC might want more specificity regarding how these funds will be allocated. Vague phrases like "internal and external team members" and "secondary service providers" could raise concerns about potential misuse of funds or lack of proper financial controls.

2. Non-Disclosure of Intellectual Property

• Protecting intellectual property is crucial, but the SEC requires companies to provide adequate disclosure about their business operations and risks. If Acquired Streaming's business model heavily relies on its intellectual property, a complete lack of disclosure could be problematic. The SEC might require more information about the nature of the IP and its importance to the company's success.

3. Confidentiality of Cooperative Partnerships

• While respecting the confidentiality of partners is important, the SEC might require disclosure of material relationships or agreements that could impact the company's financial condition or operations. If these partnerships are significant to Acquired Streaming's business, complete non-disclosure could raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest or undisclosed risks.

4. Non-Refundable Payments to Partners

• This statement could raise concerns about potential investor protection issues. Accepting non-refundable payments for services that are credited as investments could be seen as a form of unregistered securities offering. The SEC would likely want to scrutinize these arrangements to ensure they comply with securities laws.

The ACQ investment document attempts to avoid raising red flags with the SEC by explicitly stating that no securities are being offered and that the agreement does not constitute a private placement offering. However, the structure and language used in the ACQ investment document could still potentially trigger scrutiny from the SEC.

The SEC's primary concern is protecting investors. The "non-dilutive equity stake" offered in the agreement, while carefully worded to avoid the term "security," could still be interpreted as such if it meets the criteria of an investment contract under the Howey Test. The Howey Test considers whether there is an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits solely from the efforts of others. If the SEC determines that the agreement essentially offers an investment contract, it could be deemed a security offering, requiring registration and compliance with securities laws.  

The document's emphasis on the potential risks and liabilities for investors, while intended to protect ACQ, could also draw attention from the SEC. The repeated disclaimers about the possibility of financial loss and the lack of voting rights might raise concerns about the true nature of the investment and whether investors are adequately informed.

Report To The SEC Here

Report To Your State Securities Board Here