InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 63
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/04/2013

Re: exploremore post# 8329

Monday, 12/02/2013 4:54:30 PM

Monday, December 02, 2013 4:54:30 PM

Post# of 16680
You said it fine and your opinion is due respect even if by those that disagree with it.

If I can touch upon a subtlety too easily overlooked. To determine materiality you do not ask whether a reasonable investor would consider information after a degree of due diligence which may give rise to certain expectations. The issue is whether a reasonable member of the investing public would consider it.

Even the investor who had formed an expectation that sales were being made to Battelle, and I didn't notice any info from the company to that effect unless one reads between the lines, would consider info confirming his expectation. I submit that the longitude and latitude of where the pictures was taken does just that and it was material inside information.

Is it ready for the court? I agree with you that for many reasons it isn't. The primay factor being that whoever sent the pictures out may not have realized that since they were electronic they were embedded with Battelle's location.

What could very well get NNLX in trouble is, should it be true and I have no reason to believe the declarant, things like what staff reportedly said to a single investor who visited Hubbard without an appointment.

The CEO was out delivering a "big" order.

There were various customers and significant orders were being developed with others

The investor was shown a large area of the cold storage room seen in the photographs and he was told had just been emptied to fill the shipment being delivered

This was before the photos were distributed be enews.

Providing a single investor with information regarding a "big" order is inexcuseable IMO.