The truth is always "what's permitted to shareholders" which should be obvious to everyone, educated or not, but it is nice to see some recognition that LiveWire's management is smart.
The SEC rule granting a "safe harbor" benefit when making potentially-incorrect forward-looking statements is the only benefit received by a public company when its management restricts the discussion to periodic investor conference calls. Without this benefit there would be a potential criminal fraud prosecution risk, and a much higher probability of shareholder lawsuits, resulting from any misinformation or flawed estimate conveyed.
I'm surprised to see you voice support for management's reliance upon the "safe harbor" -- don't you think that full disclosure without an affirmative defense against fraud accusations would be more likely to result in public company management telling the truth and being precise and accurate more of the time?
I think it is common sense that a policy of full disclosure transparency is superior, at all times and in all public companies, to a policy of hiding behind affirmative legal defenses promulgated by the SEC or established by legal precedent.
Furthermore, neither LiveWire nor Adia Nutrition went public in the conventional forward IPO manner -- when a person reverse-merges and "goes public" without raising capital from the public in an IPO, while their company is still in the startup stage, this action itself is not consistent with common sense. The only tangible benefit that such public startup companies have is the ability to engage meaningfully with public shareholders by way of public discussions and a larger audience of interested people who may choose to help the startup company achieve its business objectives. If nothing of value is created in productive and truthful collaboration with "the crowd" in public then the only intangible benefit of a reverse merger as a way to "go public" is to create the appearance that new private investors who buy shares in a private placement offering might be more likely to be able to resell their newly-acquired restricted shares in the future.
Considering that securities law requires that private placement investors never buy shares "with a view toward distribution" it is hard to see any common sense in NOT making use of the only tangible benefit that comes from a reverse-merger. Why would anyone "go public" without capital, and thereby accept the financial and legal burdens of 1934 Exchange Act compliance, then NOT communicate freely and truthfully with the public in ways that are not achievable in practice by remaining private?
