InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 92
Posts 28739
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 04/19/2013

Re: Jason Coombs post# 24895

Friday, 03/27/2015 6:56:22 PM

Friday, March 27, 2015 6:56:22 PM

Post# of 74636
Id suggest your response certainly proves you are not an expert, although Im sure youre dying to explain to everyone how you are.

Lets start out with insider trading in possession of material non public information. The rule permits trades where the information is not a factor in the trade, such as an already existing plan to accumulate or short, made in good faith, of which you would not have any clue of.

Also, what information is material to LVVV specifically. Since the SEC has not clearly defined "materiality" its left to the courts to decide. In that regard, the standard is if the information is considered relevant to an investor who might buy or sell shares. If a stock reflects all public info, does the new info significantly change the perception of that stock? Well, historically toxic funding has not deterred or directly effected the shares of LVVV. It may have depressed the shares upon execution and conversion but not upon that information being made public.

Therefore, your expert opinion misses the mark and proves to be non applicable as it pertains to LVVV.

Clear enough for you now?