InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 6
Posts 438
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/02/2010

Re: yaadmon post# 3128

Friday, 10/29/2010 3:46:37 PM

Friday, October 29, 2010 3:46:37 PM

Post# of 263707
The argument against that is the term "registered" would indicate the statement refers to the shares and not to the investors. So a revised statement would read

"that own shares registered prior to the announcement".

Investors/Traders don't typically look at the certificates and have a reasonable trust in the broker supplying valid and up-to-date shares.

Its an ambiguous statement, but in a court of law, I would bet that since the shareholders have to put an inherent trust in the brokers servicing them, that the shareholders would win cases against the brokers for supplying fraudulent certificates. I would be concerned if I was holding on to shares bought in September, then I would be on my broker to make sure those shares were converted properly. Having owned shares in September, I would have "owned shares prior to the announcment". That makes more sense than hunting down my broker for a certificate to see if the shares are valid and whether they are registered properly. If I was that paranoid about stocks, I probably wouldn't get very far in trading and lose my mind at the same time.

IMO

Best to all