SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (2597)1/22/2003 1:08:23 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 15987
 
I was pretty sure that was true, but wanted to rely on the articles......Thanks for mentioning it.......



To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (2597)1/22/2003 1:25:48 PM
From: zonder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
commondreams.org

This is from Associated Press.

Sorry I have to go now but will look into other documents tomorrow if you like.

By the way:

He did not file the Form 4 in a timely manner. Big deal.

I don't know what you do, Mr McIntosh, but you might not be aware that insiders file BEFORE selling their stock, even in cases where there is NO lockup.

34 weeks is not "late". It is going through the motions of declaring a sale 8.5 MONTHS later, fearing he will be jailed soon if he does not do so.

This looks interesting, by the way:

house.gov



To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (2597)1/22/2003 2:00:36 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh  Respond to of 15987
 
zonder, do you now understand what the lockup was about?

He could NOT have sold it legally. He was under a six-month lock-up period (normal in such transactions) and sold them two months after he got the shares.


The proposed lockup had nothing to do with him getting shares. It was in connection with a proposed offering that did not take place.