InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1
Posts 287
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/27/2007

Re: tdtcal post# 34047

Wednesday, 02/04/2015 8:52:21 PM

Wednesday, February 04, 2015 8:52:21 PM

Post# of 85915
Was two points really. It sounds like we're looking for points to nit pick here for lack of something better to complain about and listing the "omission" of company names from a PR as definitive proof of the lack of a relationship.

1. It's painfully clear based on quite an extended history now that for one reason or another Mantra is either unwilling or unable to list Alstom by name in press releases. Especially given they weren't even able to name them in the PR ABOUT the deal with Alstom. There's zero reason to believe suddenly the omission now is a smoking gun given that it's ALWAYS been omitted.

2. There's a 0% chance Mantra would be able to issue a PR referencing other companies without first passing the PR by the other firm and through legal. Any major firm, particularly those that fall under SEC purview, have strict guidelines for use of the firm name in the public domain. My firm is such a firm and as an example employees aren't even allowed to imply an affiliation with or mention by name the firm on any social media platform other thank LinkedIn. LinkedIn is only allowed because it's monitored by compliance. The idea that Mantra could just mention Alstom or Lafarge by name if they wanted to without their consent is insane. This is being talked about as if Mantra could simply done it if they want to but chose not to.