In your previous post you made out the signed up Emailing had information not previously disclosed in a filing. Emailing unknown material to a select group of SHs would be a FD violation. No way to spin that fact. If you now want to claim the Emailing was Brown blabbering a pile of BS previous known, then it's unclear why the thrill in bringing it up. As it was previously known, and does not constitute news. Can't have it both ways.
A company under an informal non public inquiry which is not charged with any wrongdoing does not lose its protections under the FD act.
That's a nonsensical statement in three aspects. First ZN is under a FORMAL SEC Investigation. If it were informal, the SEC would not have subpoena powers.
Any time a SH believes the SEC investigation has shown no "wrong doing", then they should demand management immediately file an 8K stating a termination letter has been received from the SEC. Else the FORMAL investigation remains open, and no conclusions can be made whether or not the SEC will litigate.