Vystar Corp (VYST)

[cantwaittoretire]

So, I've been reading all these messages saying that the information Greg is giving to investors is illegal and I got to thinking, then what is the point of investor relations, so I did a little research and from what I found, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Greg has told anybody. I found this article and I will copy and paste some of the most significant snippets. You can read the whole thing if you would like.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-can-investors-talk-to-companies-

If an insider tells you about an upcoming merger and you split the profits on your trade: jail. If an insider tells you about an upcoming merger and also is your brother: jail. If the insider works in investor relations, and talks to investors as part of his job, and helps you with your earnings model: no jail, even if you talk on weekends and discuss hypothetical vacations. Most of the time, you know it when you see it.

So the courts developed a clear test of whether a corporate insider is providing inside information in violation of his duties to his company. It's from the Supreme Court's Dirks decision:

The test is whether the insider personally will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure. Absent some personal gain, there has been no breach of duty to stockholders. And absent a breach by the insider, there is no derivative breach.

This is usually called the "personal benefit" test. What is nice about it is that it makes the law reasonably clear. If you call up the IR guy at a company and talk about the quarter for a while, you won't go to jail. If you also talk about sports, you won't go to jail. If you also ask after his kids, you won't go to jail. If you also "talked about going on joint vacations," as Goyal and Ray did, 4 you won't go to jail.

If you hand him a bag of cash in a parking lot in exchange for the information he gives you, you'll go to jail. But really if you hand anyone a bag of cash in a parking lot you should be getting ready for prison. The law, under the personal benefit test, is clear and understandable and intuitive. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said in reversing Todd Newman's and Anthony Chiasson's conviction (which is what prosecutors are appealing here), "a breach of the duty of confidentiality is not fraudulent unless the tipper acts for personal benefit, that is to say, there is no breach unless the tipper 'is in effect selling the information to its recipient for cash, reciprocal information, or other things of value for himself.'"