InvestorsHub Logo

kabunushi

12/07/17 4:03 PM

#148291 RE: Bored Lawyer #148286

Thanks for taking the effort to add your $200.00 ($0.02 inflated to unfair but normal legal billing rates - just kidding) to this discussion.

doingmybest

12/07/17 8:53 PM

#148348 RE: Bored Lawyer #148286

I really don't want to spend any more time on this issue. I understand the requirement for or not for correcting or updating. But, are you confident you have the correct reference, that for secondary offerings by public companies?

There is so much interpretation, which is why I am fine to go with the 9 out of 10 time rule and continue to use my common sense.

biosectinvestor

12/07/17 10:50 PM

#148374 RE: Bored Lawyer #148286

I suspect the "NDA" exemption is much more narrow than people think just by reading the plain language there. I'd bet it has more to do with the particularities of the offering, until it's disclosed by the company, rather than an exemption on them that allows them to selectively disclose information on trials or other data, which I suspect they don't even have yet, but even if they did, I doubt that exemption applies to that particular kind of information. I think that is beyond the scope of what is likely intended and meant there.

It's of course possible, and I won't claim to have deeply researched it, but just say, from experience of a different sort, if someone told me, and asked me to rely on just reading that language alone, I'd go get some experienced securities law counsel, and even they'd probably have to do an evening's worth of intermediate research to give me the answer.