"The meaning is ambiguous. From my research, it is entirely possible that REK has been privately notified by the FDA, at this point, but has not yet received the report.
However, the words do not say the inspection was successful, they say that the inspection's completion was successful: that is, the inspection was not cut short, or terminated. Rather, it ran its whole length."
Jim, here is my take on the inspection semantics. what would be "successful" about completing the inspection? If the inspection was completed, it is merely "complete," not "successful." If the reality is that they are still waiting on a decision, the word "completion" would have been 100% sufficient, and the use of the adjective "successful" would be superfluous and gratuitous. If this was the case, then it's use in that context could be considered legally misleading and misrepresentative. I don't think this would fall under the protection of the "forward looking" disclaimer, and would land Rebecca in a lot of deep do-do if the FDA were to then have a problem with the plant.
The sentence conveys a message of approval, and Rebecca as a lawyer would know that the technicals of semantics are secondary to the generally understood meaning as would be interpreted by it's target audience (ie. the shareholders). I'm not sure the legal jargon for this principle, but I know that technical legal speak cannot be used to justify the misrepresentation of an overt public message. Maybe somebody can help me with this ("loyer" over on SH?).
joe
ps. comon HC, either $hit or get off the "pot" ! |
