Your implying that SI has been "touting" REFR is ludicrous. Nancy, you have this terrible habit of misstating what other people are saying, thus making your commentary meaningless.
Specifically, Dale sought to verify that there was "no connection between REFR and any staff or owner at SI". Personally -- in general -- I see no need for any owner/employee of SI to disclose their personal stock holdings. Once they start mentioning a stock they hold, we start approaching the line, but as long as any curtailment of the discussion is grounded in the TOU, I don't consider the line crossed. However, if actions are taken by management based instead on what is being said about the stock itself, the line is crossed IMO. However, by that I mean SI opens itself up to potential litigation, not commits any particular crime.
Now, I hate to even go here, but if per chance any SI owner/employee were actually somehow contractually involved with REFR and did not disclose it, that would indeed be something the SEC might consider actionable. Surely you've seen an abundance of "better safe than sorry" disclosure statements in your internet travels. This is why.
Having been around the block a bit I consider myself pretty good at judging credibility. My impression of you is "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Therefore, one simple question for you: If you knew that anyone associated with SI ownership/management did indeed have some contractual obligation with REFR, or any stock you held for that matter to make this generic, would you feel obligated to disclose that yourself, or say nothing and take full advantage of any possible benefits of said relationship?
- Jeff |
