Replies to post #71938 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

The onus of Reg FD is on the company to not furnish selective disclosure to investors in the first place. Under your interpretation of the regulation, investors would need to be in constant communication with a company to assure that they were getting the full set of material information that had been furnished to other investors, which is clearly absurd from a practical standpoint.

This is equally absurd. With the interpretation you are espousing the only possible way for a company to deal with Reg FD is to never answer the phone - or have an IQ=80 drone answer. I.e. transparency is utterly lost. Fairness has to be balanced against transparency.

PS As a point of fact I have never seen a company cited for talking to individual investors. Have you (not meant as confrontational)?

[poorgradstudent]

>The onus of Reg FD is on the company to not furnish selective disclosure to investors in the first place.<

Sorry, I wasn't trying to make a legal comment regarding Reg FD. I was trying to be more practical in suggesting that an investor can contact the company and ask for the data. A simple phone call to see if they will divulge is probably a lot easier than trying to document their Reg FD violations and getting the data through a lawsuit :-)

Regardless, along the lines of your point, the response of the company to an inquiry will tell much about their corporate professionalism. If they don't release the data, does an investor really want to spend any more time following such a company?