If Baltia makes a statement to this board, it is public information, and therefore not illegal. If Baltia calls you at home and gives you negative information (non-public information), so you can dump your stock, then that is illegal.
I will not take any of that response personally. But based on my 15 years of dealing with the SEC you do not share the same understanding of of public vs non public disclosure that I do.
Any information deemed pertinent To the performance or the valuation of an entity not disclosed in a fair and public manner may be construed as advantageous to those who are recipients of that knowledge if the act following obtaining that knowledge provides an avenue to financial gain. (or avoidance of loss)
This is the essence of the rule. It is not what you say but how and when it is said. Quite frankly there is nothing outside of what we have discussed on this board that would be omitted from release. It would be fine under sec guidance for them to state that they are under FAA review and it is progressing as long as they do not represent the position of the FAA in a first person perspective (or third person) It would be fine if they continued to represent the opinion of their status or more clearly their progress.
The focus is on who has the information and how they obtained that info and what they did with it. It is not illegal to have insider info as long as you did not take an action to financially benefit or avoid loss. The act of information sharing is to be done so in a public manner in that all investors have equal access to that information.
Again it is not what you say but how available the information or commentary is and the result of receiving that info.
Keep in mind that many companies are much more open about their activities as long as they open in their delivery. The trick with this company is the overlap with theFAA or DOT. However, the problem is that they have gone to the extreme of not saying anything which in other companies would be supportable. That being said the majority of information released where a second party is involved typically requires an approval from that entity as well
So my position remains. There is no reason for them not to give any public infomation to their status as long as they do not impede the representation of other parties involved. Or in fact sways the public to believe that what they are stating is in conflict with the other parties involved.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
