Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I'm sure that there are some people in this still from trips. If I had a million or two shares for a few grand and could sell 300k of it today for 75k, I just might
VPLM getting VERY interesting!!
Nice post penny! VPLM!!
That makes NO sense, if they where buying the price would go up. They cannot artificially or magically hold the price down while buying back.
Thanks, like I said I have no experience with owning a stock that does one of these, if I buy more today it's a "way" average up., so I am just being careful, I would not normally buy a stock on a news day because most of the time they settle back down in a few day's, this is a VERY different "news" than I'm used to.
Devils advocate question here. I am not familiar with these blackouts. What "possible" negative things can become of one? Why would they restrict insiders from selling? It seems to me that if you are keeping someone from selling you must know about a reason that they would want to sell, i.e. bankruptcy, lawsuit, etc. Again, just exploring all DD avenues hear, don't chastise me here.
Yup, but I bought in for more that I sold for because I couldn't get over being out over last weekend so I got back in Mon. morning after no news. OOPS!! should have waited til today and got in lower, OH well hind sight is a lovely thing. GLTU
Then sell 50 shares!
I like that post, gave you a follow. GLTU
You too! Thanks for the info. GLTU
I hope this isn't off topic, they are the same company. So, what effect if any does anyone think a positive response from FDA will have on ENTB? Koos was just issued AAA shares that gave him majority votes in that,, I'm trying to figure it all out. Should I have some of both or all BMSN??
I never even read the comments, didn't know what the hell you guys where talking about. Just saw the article on FB and thought I would post it for people that are not on FB.
Why is this post in reply to my post???
I read the entire thing and missed the part that said 900 apps ahead of FITX.
Ha, it was deleted
Thank you, I enjoy this board for the most part, for the record I am not a basher, or a pumper on any stock nor do I hardly ever flip (don't have the time, or the balls for it). I post what I feel and what I think is relevant to the particular board. I'm still useing Sombium and it works. Referring to another post, I like the packaging, I had a retail store for 11 years and know that packaging that stands out is good. One thing that worries me a little bit is the 5 hour energy infringement, somebody posted that it fine because the ingredients are different, but that is not true. I could come up with any widget and call it five hour bla bla bla and they would have a legitimate case.
Firstly I posted that for every bodies benefit, don't get mad if every post doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, too many people need to be patted on the head and told every thing is awesome too much. Secondly I am still up in the air, I have the right to follow and comment even if I sold. I still love the business model and the products, but that email of dill's (yes I believe you dill) made me nervous. Also been nervous all weekend about being out because of dill's email. But with all the halts on mj stocks, EVERYONE needs to be careful about what the post and email. Don't get pissed at me for sharing info, I found that article on another and thought it was appropriate for this board.
Just FYI:
S.E.C. Vows More Use of a Little-Used Tool
Mary Jo White, the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, announced a new approach to pursuing violations last week.
It is rare that the Securities and Exchange Commission announces a new approach to pursuing violations. Mary Jo White, the agency’s chairwoman, did just that last week when she pointed to a seldom-used provision of the federal securities laws that the S.E.C. will employ against people who use others to do their bidding.
In a speech at a white-collar crime conference sponsored by the New York City Bar Association, Ms. White said that “One new approach to charging individuals is to use Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act,” which she said can be “potentially a very powerful tool” for pursuing violations. Before discussing the provision, she kindly told her audience filled with defense lawyers that “before you start reaching for your smartphones to look it up, let me save you the trouble” by describing the provision for them.
Section 20(b) provides that “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to do any act or thing which it would be unlawful for such person to do under the provisions of this chapter or any rule or regulation thereunder through or by means of any other person.” Under the criminal law, this is known as the “innocent instrumentality” doctrine, which allows someone to be held responsible for using another person to engage in illegal conduct if that person did not intend to commit a crime.
For example, if I ask you to go into a neighbor’s house to retrieve my laptop computer, when in fact I do not own it, then you have not committed a crime if you get it for me because you did not have the intent to steal it. But by using you to commit the crime, the law treats me as the perpetrator even though I did not physically engage in the illegal conduct.
The securities laws give the S.E.C. different ways to hold one person responsible for another’s violation, even when they did not directly engage in the misconduct. One part of Section 20 creates liability for a “control person,” which requires showing a high degree of authority over the actions of the actual perpetrator.
The S.E.C. had notified the hedge fund firm SAC Capital Advisors, now called Point72 Asset Management, that it considered suing the firm as a control person for the conduct of its various employees who were convicted of trading on inside information. That approach was later dropped in favor of a guilty plea for violating the securities laws.
Another means to charge those who help contribute to a violation is for aiding and abetting the perpetrator. The Supreme Court rejected accomplice liability for securities fraud in 1994 in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank. But Congress restored it the next year for S.E.C. enforcement actions — but not private claims — by providing for liability for anyone who “knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person” in a violation.
Unlike control person and accomplice theories of liability, however, Section 20(b) has been rarely used by the S.E.C. because there was no real need for it, at least until recently. But that may have changed with the Supreme Court’s decision in 2011 in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders.
In that case, the court said that only “the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it” could be held responsible for a violation. In explaining how this limitation works, the court pointed to the relationship between a speechwriter and a public speaker, so that “even when a speechwriter drafts a speech, the content is entirely within the control of the person who delivers it. And it is the speaker who takes credit — or blame — for what is ultimately said.”
The approach in the Janus case makes it more difficult to reach those who contribute to a violation but are neither a controlling person nor an accomplice, but instead acted only as the unseen hand — think Tywin Lannister in “Game of Thrones” — behind the fraudulent conduct. It is not entirely clear whether the Supreme Court’s analysis applies to S.E.C. enforcement actions or just private securities fraud cases, and the lower courts have split on that issue.
But Ms. White is not taking any chances by pointing to Section 20(b) as a new avenue to reach those who use others to engage in wrongdoing without committing the violation themselves. Section 20(b) avoids the obstacle thrown up by the Janus opinion and, as Ms. White pointed out, lets the S.E.C. “reach those who have participated in disseminating false or misleading information to investors through offering materials, stock promotional materials, or earnings call transcripts.”
This provision may even allow the S.E.C. to go beyond just misleading disclosures to pursue individuals in other types of cases.
Controversy has swirled lately around the conduct of activist investors who take large positions in companies and possibly leak information about their intentions to entice others to make similar trades. DealBook reported that the S.E.C. is investigating trades in Herbalife after William A. Ackman’s hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Management, took a large short position and criticized the company as an illegal pyramid scheme. Pershing Square is among those asked to supply information, along with firms founded by Carl C. Icahn and George Soros that bought shares after Mr. Ackman’s arguments against the company became public.
It is not considered insider trading for a private investor to disclose the intention to buy or sell a stock or the reasons for it, even if that information might significantly affect the market price. But there are disclosure obligations for those who own 5 percent or more of a company, and restrictions on trading intended to manipulate a company’s stock price.
Encouraging others to buy or sell could be the basis for a securities violation even if the actual traders do not violate the law on their own because they did not have the requisite intent. Section 20(b) could be the basis to pursue an enforcement action if one person encourages another to trade to avoid making a required disclosure because the transaction technically falls outside the reporting rules. Using others to do your bidding is exactly what this provision is intended to reach if the government can show intent to violate the law by the person who orchestrated the trading.
In her speech, Ms. White described the use of Section 20(b) as “What Is Old Is New.” Her discussion is a warning that the S.E.C. is planning to dust off an overlooked provision to pursue conduct that skirts the edge of the securities laws by those who use intermediaries to do their bidding. The defense bar will have to figure out how to deal with this new push.
Peter J. Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School, is a co-author of “Securities Crimes (2d edition).” Twitter: @peterjhenning
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/s-e-c-vows-more-use-of-a-little-used-tool/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
(Just in case you didn't hear about it)
Don't forget .0139 to .0059 in two months, just saying
Too much funny shit going on here, I'm out for now. I got a bad feeling a halt is coming. those emails SHOULD NOT BE POSTED, I may be wrong but I have my money in MY hand for now
Go look at rocco's previous posts, very broken english, I don't think he made that one up
Don't need to look up anything smart ass, I'm long here and trying to help. What you can't seem to figure out, is that it was not what was said, it was how it was said. i.e. private email!! Same EXACT message via twitter or facebook would be fine. THAT's ALL I'M SAYING. I'm fare game here now as I am done with this topic and won't reply so have at me. ANAS!!
For the record, I'm through with this topic, I am long here and staying if it goes to 001 (it wont) But I just don't like drawing attention from a stupid board post when they are already watching mj stocks like a hawk. GLTA GO ANAS
Again, I am not that clear on the rules either, but I was told by another IR guy, VPL^ when I called to see if there was any news coming out soon and he told me I can't disclose that it would be insider info. That makes sense to me. A tweet by Chris saying 'No news this week" is fine, twitter is OK'd with SEC to disclose info. BUT and huge BUT, stating a specific day to a person in a phone call or private email is the problem. I HOPE it was fake!!
Here we go again, effin BS!!
Good post!
I agree, that's the kind of crap that would get them a suspension with the SEC watching mj stocks so close I'm sure it's bs, or they are playing with fire!!
I really don't know the rules much myself, all I know is that I was told by another IR guy that he could not tell me when news is coming out because that would be inside info. Maybe he was wrong, just makes me a little nervous.
No, it means you have to maintain .01 to move up to the QB listings
The only thing that worries me about it is saying when news is coming out to someone in a private email, THAT IS against the rules. At least that is what I have been told by other investor relations guys.
I would not sticky it, I would remove it! JMO
IF this is real it worries me, I've spoke with other IR guys from different companies and they ALL have told me that they CANNOT say when news is coming out to anyone prior to it being released. I have emailed Chris a few times and never once got a reply. No offence Dill but I'm a little skeptical of that email.
Would be great to see the flippers and shorters get it stuck right up their......well you know! GO ANAS!!
I really hope for the sake of many on this board that the next Alternatural med is for Bi-Polar disease. Really I do!!!
Alternaturals ?@Alternaturals 1h
Coming very soon, New Products, Financial Projections, Retail Distribution, Co-branding, Partner, and Joint Venture Announcements
That's why I don't flip this one, who wants to get caught with their pants down and NO ANAS!!!!
Except that LOTE is currently at .026 and I don't see in the three year chart where it ever got much over $6/share.
Sounds like next week.