Replies to post #180722 on NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[clawmann]

Howard:

It is the footnotes (numbers 60 and 61) that I found highly relevant:

"60 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.” "

But then footnote 61 says:

"61 We recognized in Regulation FD that “the issuer may use a method ‘or combination of methods’ of disclosure, in recognition of the fact that it may not always be possible or desirable for an issuer to rely on a single method of disclosure as reasonably designed to effect broad public disclosure.” “[A]n issuer’s methods of making disclosure in a particular case should be judged with respect to what is ‘reasonably designed’ to effect broad, non-exclusionary distribution in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances.” Regulation FD Adopting Release, supra note 41."


Certainly having Bena post a PR from Neomedia on behalf of Neomedia seems to fall within footnote 60. BUT by relying solely on Bena's blog as the outlet, has Neomedia's adopted a method of making disclosure that, in the particular case concerned, has been "reasonably designed to effect broad, non-exclusionary distribution in light of all relevant facts and circumstances" as required by Reg FD?

Footnote 61 clearly suggests that whether the method of distributing a particular PR complies with Reg FD depends on all relevant facts and circumstances.

So....it may be OK to issue some PR's (depending on what they are about) just by using Bena's blog. But it may well not be OK to rely solely on her blog when issuing others.