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.
Interesting. I didn't remember that 15(d) expressly provided that Reg FD applied to non-listed companies but was positive that a insider trading laws applied to pinks. You are likely familiar with the old theory of corporate misappropriation as well as the liability of the insider for tipping.
That is a very good point about the failure of NNLX to alert the public that it would be releasing info to persons on a list. This raises the question as to whether persons should have to provide a Nanologix with their name in order to be included on the list (and possible be added to yet another spammer list and/or increase the risk of being hacked).
See an attorney and have them explain what is called for by Rule 101(e):
I may have before but no better than to do ifs. From what I have seen the photos were not distributed anonymously but were originally distributed by NNLX. Later copies were posted under anonymous message board names.
Simple. You photos were only distributed to select persons named on a list kept by the company. Such a selective distribution of material inside information is illegal. Note my earlier comments to the effect that I am not convinced the company knew that it was distributing material information. That being info tending to identify Battelle. Earlier I also noted that the info may not have been material. Upon reflection, the fact that some sales were being made is material, but that information had been non selectively provided in an update or press release. The crucial question is whether identifying Battelle as the buyer is material.
Even then, as I touched upon, their release calls into question business judgment.
Do you mean by "source" the photographer or if it has been confirmed that the photos were distributed by the company. I believe what counts is not the photographer but if they were sent out by the company.
I would like to make a fundamental point regarding securities law and its application to Nanologix in at least one particular instance; the photos of boxes.
1. I am not convinced that any violation of securities law occurred.
A. There is no violation if the information was not material, Without looking up definitions, would an the cause a trade or is it insignificant,
B. Even if it was material, there is no violation of securities law if any trades were not based upon that information. This is difficult to prove.
2. I would be more concerned by the CEO's selective release.
A. This assumes that the CEO released the pictures and especially the picture that included the location where taken.
B. It well may be that the CEO was not aware that the picture was embedded with that location.
3. I am not persuaded that the release, absent info identifying Battel, was not publicly disclosed. My recollection is that in recent updates nnlx said that sales were being made. If so, this is cumulative and does little more than confirm a sale.
4. I am more concerned with the CEO's exercise of business judgment and why the pictures were released.
A. Companies are pretty careful to avoid the selective disclosure of anything that hints of materiality.
B. Assuming that NNLX has good counsel, I wonder that it is so desperate to raise capital that its CEO sent the pictures out. If sales are picking up significantly, I simply cannot understand why the CEO sent those photos out.
Where did I say you said that?
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I was wondering that the identity of the customer wasn't insider information; not the size of the shipment.
But if the size of the shipment is insider information, why did staff tell Machiavelli that the CEO was delivering a large order? What about what he says it told him about new orders and volume?
$3,000.00! That is what they are saying on the other board was the value of the mysterious large shipment. 20 boxes each containing 100 plates are not what I call a large shipment.
Someone else there claims that they have seen pictures providing the longitude and latitude of where the shipment was delivered and that identifies the customer. WTF! Isn't this CEO the one that was so concerned about people contacting customers that he would not name them - but he puts out photos that pretty well do just that.
Someone said that this is inside info. I don't know if that is correct or not, but it sure isn't right.
I understand. The company is raking in so much in sales and other revenue that it has to keep its amazing success top secret.
You are as wrong about this Fulcrum nonsense as you are about everything else. The obscenity is the depths to which you and your kind will go to avoid facing the failure of this company to provide basic information like a real public company does.
Forget my definition of significant. Machiavelli wrote in the post to which I replied that "new orders from multiple sources are coming in with significant volume".
Please knock off the evasion and tell us why the company simply will not post numbers. Instead it resorts to releasing pictures of boxes.
If it is clear that product is being sold in significant quantities, why doesn't the company simply post numbers?
That the boxes could be empty was asked to emphasize the lack of information from NNLX; little to nothing was provided as to the details of any shipments. I suggest that FUD is the result of this company's failure to provide information. Rather than sharing pictures it very well could have provided shareholders with details of its transactions.
Are the boxes empty or full? Is the content being sold at a profit, sold at cost, at a loss or contributed for testing?
Why is there no surprise in your resort to the ad hominem?
Incredible. What kind of attorney tries to impress with there billing rate but a phony attorney or an idiot and an attorney who fails to comprehend the impact of fiduciary status must have got their credentials off the back of breakfast cereal. Did anyone consider whether an exclusive license is a license in fact when it is premised on a prohibitive royalty agreement? This thing about photos of boxes is over the top. Is this the outfit posted pictures of boxes of equipment under a Christmas tree not that long after its CEO boasted about how it was soon going to be selling thousands of units? Years ago and no such sales. If there are any real attorneys out there, is there a problem with the selective sharing of these pictures and the selective release of non public material information; the shipping of product to a customer?