Replies to post #180692 on NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[clawmann]

One final thought:

If Bena were to recieve a PR with an "embargo" time on it, and that time has not yet passed, she would also be well-advised to put in place a business practice for handling such PRs to ensure neither the existence of the PR nor its contents are revealed to anyone else and to ensure that such PR is not acted uopn by her or anyone else. Consulting a licensed US attorney who deals with Reg FD issues is strongly recommended.

[jonesieatl]

clawmann, thank you for the info ...

... and for digging it up w/analysis.

"For purposes of Regulation FD, a posting on a blog, by or on behalf of the company, would be treated the same as any other posting on a company's web site. The company would have to consider the factors outlined above to determine if the blog posting could be considered 'public.'"

Bena isn't quite a blog 'by or on behalf of' NeoMedia. She covers other companies/events/etc ... some of which might not even have to pay her LOL.

Now, if NEOM wants to put a link on NEOM's website saying 'here is Bena's blog and she is one of our news outlets, check there first for breaking news and updates, we'll get it on our website eventually too' then they might be okay.

Right now it's in a major gray area and IMHO is just one more instance of loose lips flapping around NEOM.

Thanks again.

jonesie

p.s. Wow, arpvrp and hiijacker's posts about Bena saying something like she isn't going to talk about Scanbuy if somebody doesn't pay her, and deleting comments re: Scanbuy .... that is just amazing. NEOM/Bena just got into an even grayer area IMO. No surprise, business as usual as I posted the other day.

[clawmann]

Jonsie:

I actually believe that, by paying Bena to post the PR on her blog, the PR is either a posting on a blog by Neomedia or a posting on a blog by Bena on behalf of Neomedia. Because Bena is being paid to post it, it is more likely a post "on behalf of" Neomedia, with Bena acting as the paid agent of the company.

So I don't think it can be validly challenged on that specific point. The real issue would be, as I see it, whether there are other factors, assessed on a case-by-case basis, that would cause such a posting to fail to satisfy Reg FD.

[lesnshawn]

clawmann: I read them too as soon as you posted it and from what I could see, they are following the rules as outlined and are walking a straight line theses days...very straight. Current management can't change what former management did but IMO they are definitely running a tight ship and I think they're running a very tight ship for very good reason that we shareholders are not privy to...but we can speculate.

"Terry: We want this to succeed more than anyone and drive the market. We are doing everything above board and correctly. Other mobile barcode providers are talking to us and are respectful of our IP."
http://www.gomonews.com/chat-with-neomedia%E2%80%99s-svp-terry-griffin-on-neomedia-patents-vs-scanbuy/

All this bickering about how this latest news was disseminated...big deal. I don't understand why people are getting their shorts in a bind over it. They did it in a (now) legal and proper manner. Why? To inform the CURRENT shareholder base??? Quite possible and IMO, very probable. I do sincerely believe that IM, LM and company are doing what they can to insure that the current and long-standing shareholder base will profit alongside management and YA as events unfold.

IMO, I think we are all going to be pleasantly surprised one day in the near future and we will no longer have to stress over our NEOM shares because they won't be NEOM shares anymore. I'll share an additional thought along that line in a subsquent post for all to ponder. ;-)

lns

[elliot1234]

Clawmann, I'm not a lawyer (though I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express) but I don't see where http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2008/34-58288.pdf
discusses blogs, except for those originating from the companies site and written by one of the officers of the company.

It seems there is no question that putting the PR on the companies site would meet the requirements for FD but it doesn't seem to me that putting information ONLY on an "outside" blog would meet the requirements.

Howard