Dan, I have read Sect 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, excerpted by you earlier, and again below, with a focus on the key words;
"though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof"
I believe the key words here are " describes such security for a consideration received or to be received directly or indirectly from an issuer "
If RAM is not a promoter, (which it isn't), and is not paid by the company to promote its stock and'or write these research reports, (which it isn't), then in essence it isn't required to use a disclaimer at all as it isn't being paid for the service the rule intends to cover.
It is my opinion that RAM has gone above and beyond the call of the spirit of sect 17, in that it has disclosed that it has a substantial position in the stock, when it doesn't have to.
I further opine that RAM has put together a fair overview of the company, and that it's disclaimer makes it clear that it is not offering securities and is not meant to be misconstrued as investment advice. In fact, it clearly states that the report is not to be used as a basis for investment pruposes.
It may not be enough to please everyone, but it is enough to make it legal, and that's what counts.
Now, I would like to see this issue put to bed, and let's get back to the discussion of DCHT's expanding product line, and it's future. |
