Smalls:
Re. my post, #1294, replying to yours, #1287. The issue was the presumed SEC filing requirement that Simon's estate, as an insider, must file an SEC form each time it sells Vaso shares. How could Simon's estate be selling, as you indicated it was, without the related SEC filings appearing afterwards, which to my knowledge (and I may be wrong) haven't been.
Looking back, it appears we've been over this ground. Your post, #1247, from last spring replying to mine from a few days earlier. My apologies.
Just to muddy the water a little more, your reply last spring speculated that there's a loophole in the law that allows shares belonging to Simon's estate to be sold without triggering an SEC reporting requirement on the grounds (you imply) that one of his heirs has "a beneficial interest" in the sold shares. I don't know the common or statutory law on that point per se. But I think your theory is incorrect. An estate that buys or sells Vaso stock becomes the sole owner or seller of the asset. The estate, therefore, must comply with reporting requirements respecting SEC and IRS.
It is possible that the estate has been making small distributions of stock to the heirs, and the heirs have in turn been selling those distributions piecemeal. If each distribution/sale has been less than 5%, than technically there has been no SEC reporting requirement violation. But such activity could also be deemed a sham -- "good in form, poor in substance" -- to cover-up the underlying fact that the estate is effectively liquidating its Vaso holdings, which makes it effectively a fraud. So I don't think it would wash with the SEC.
But I don't know for certain and you're right, the law here is murky. I'll try and ask a friend who specializes in trust/estate law. What a pain. Having to go deep into obscure estate/SEC law to do investment analysis.
eecpfan
