Replies to post #138881 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

[T]he legal issue is whether the person providing it 1)realized that it was non-public information and 2)could reasonably foresee that the shareholder that they were informing would, in this case, buy shares based on it.

See that's what I think you are missing. That really is NOT the legal issue as I see it. I addressed forseeability (and your example) in my prior post, so I won't bother repeating it. The real issue here, though, is materiality. The question of materiality asks whether the information would be "viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available" when making an investment decision.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=426+U.S.+438&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=8985475040212340102&scilh=0

I'm still smiling about this, even though I get the feeling that you actually meant it to be serious: "Perhaps, but the rule imposes an objective standard (i.e., reasonableness)."

Huh? I am absolutely serious about that. So you think a subjective standard applies to the issue of reasonableness or reasonable forseeability? I am quite confident that is not true. An objective standard, I might add, also applies to the question of materiality.

From the U.S. Supreme Court:

The question of materiality, it is universally agreed, is an objective one . . . .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=426+U.S.+438&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=8985475040212340102&scilh=0

From a purely practical versus legal standpoint, if a Wells Submission has been made, releasing that information one phone call at a time disadvantages those that rely on the public release of information to make their decisions.

I highly doubt that is happening. Anyway, as I think we agreed before, the company would be wise not to comment on a pending investigation.