mahatma...the Safe Harbor regulations do not apply to Expo Holdings, Inc. While JD Brown and Glen Harrs no doubt think themselves extraordinarily clever in using their non-reporting status to deceive regular shareholders and mislead them in ambiguous and doublespoken PRs and shareholder updates, they may have failed to realize their perceived free money license is a double edge sword. Non-reporting pink sheets in general and Expo Holdings specifically is not protected under Safe Harbor Act. They utilize the disclaimers in every PR and make a huge deal out of describing the language used as "forward looking", but it is only for show, IMO. Whether they have been advised to do this as a possible secondary defense in the case they are ever brought to trial for their (alleged) indiscretions or whether they honestly have been fooled into thinking they are covered by writing in "forward looking" disclaimers is unknown. But they are not protected under those specific terms.
Safe Harbor was created as protection for companies that disclose their financial data, material events and file same with the SEC in order to prevent nusiance lawsuits from the company's simple and honest attempts to issue truthful assessments of their current and future plans to their shareholders. With Expo IMHO, the intent has always been to disseminate as much information as possible as ambiguously as possible and to word it so it leaves multiple interpretations open to an individual investor. If they were to go to trial, any prosecution would have numerous examples of PRs issued, the ambiguous wording of same and the actual results which would, IMHO, prove their intent was to offer multiple interpretations...one being that the subject of any given PR was going to be hugely potentially profitable to the company. As some suspect, this was likely intended to prompt share sales. Matching these types of material/financial PR disclosures with share volume and PPS spikes/declines over the years bears that out with stunning clarity, IMHO. So their disclaimers would, once again IMO, likely be found to be nothing more than part of the intent to deceive. In itself, I don't think the misuse of Safe Harbor could be prosecuted as it is non-binding on them, but it wouldn't likely bode well for any case brought against them that they were attempting to defend. All of the above IMHO.
SBB
