Always happy to chat with you Poor Man.
Receipt of just the data is not clear necessarily. There is no way to know if they received “clear data” or what they might require details on or what historical models they might be haggling over, etc. They have the ability to review it and disclose it as appropriate, according to their judgment and they live with the consequences if it was not fast enough for a shareholder and a court agrees with them, then there can be consequences. Maybe not always huge ones, but consequences. Depends on the full circumstances, and ca take years to unwind.
Look, I am pretty certain that companies I have observed did not immediately reveal failures. They and the scientists determined the best place and context to reveal the data and their details were delivered, at conferences, and PR’s were released on those days. Do I have the email delivering the data to the company to prove it to you. No. Do I have the high level discussion in the “c” suite? No. What I do know is that there are different contexts for acting on the law.
1) companies, whenever possible should be transparent and disclose ASAP, as a good practice. There are complex circumstances where they may desire to review and consider the data to understand all that it reveals and the best fashion to reveal that data, as well as seek clarifications, etc.;
2) there are people on public forums talking about these rules, absent real details, making up investment “axioms” based upon their own beliefs as to what the law “requires” and what companies “must do”, and what companies receive when they receive “TLD”. These axioms are falsely comforting, are unnecessary and use bad logic based upon incomplete data and bad understanding of the law and how it works to give false comfort.
People who use their claimed expertise on bulletin boards and in articles, probably create potential liability for themselves the more frequently they say such false axioms to encourage investment.
Asking a CEO of a drug company the law, or asking a lawyer in the field... I’d say, the executive most likely will say the thing the market wants to hear and is best for him or her to state without causing problems for his or her company. The lawyer is going to tell a company one thing, to avoid unnecessary risk (discussing other options only as necessary), and will also carefully make sure an investor does not get the wrong ideas if he happens to find himself explaining those rules to a bunch of investors falsely taking some axiom from his advice to a CEO.
Now, is holding back good info as bad as holding back bad info more than 4 days? No, because neither are subject to the 4 day rule. However, both types of information have to be generally “material” to an investor. If there is a long delay, I might sell because I think they are omitting disclosure to hide something bad. My sale, if based upon that axiom, is ill advised. Causality gets in the way, because I assumed something was true that turned out wasn’t true. And made a decision and acted upon it. Now what May have caused that decision? That is another question.
Does that mean I can sue the company for fraud for non-disclosure of good info in 4 days? Depends. But highly unlikely. I say depends because the world is weird, and so are fact patterns. And if not in the one case, without the facts to further the claim, then probably not in the other case. But it depends on the facts and circumstances and I might get a case to completion even if I do not win the case.
Why would it be hard to make a case if the data is good. Well, I decided to sell. I assumed the 4 day rule applies. I assumed the data was material. When they failed to disclose, I sold, believing the worst, because people on a bulletin board convinced me they were experts, and I could rely upon their expertise. They “must” disclose “material information”. Then the good results came out...
Likewise, what if the info turns out in a month to be bad...? I might make the same case, that I held because “experts” on bulletin boards told me that they worked in the industry, they were lawyers, and I could rely upon their expert knowledge. They told me I’d already know the data was bad, but that was not the case.
So are those bulletin board experts going to pay me back Poor man, whichever way it goes?
I do not think so.
This is a hypothetical. But someone says, I am a lawyer and they “have to” (law is a bit odder than that) disclose and they didn’t, ergo factually you can assume that the news must be good... that’s simply not a logical assumption.
There are other reasons to be confident, the 4 day rule is not one of them.
LP and LG are executives of the company and they are not making statements one way or the other, at this time. It’s not material at this point that they are lawyers. But I do believe they will follow the law, which is what I am saying, and I think the same is the case, with regard to filings. They are no doubt, I believe, consulting with counsel, counsel has consulted with the SEC, and whatever the delay, I believe, which is not a fact, I believe they take it all seriously enough not to violate the law, or their professional duties.
But a lot of what people are debating right bow is belief. Can’t argue with beliefs... but legal axioms as factual validators, definitely a problem there.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
