Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : PLNI - Plasticon International, Inc. (Bulls Board) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrm_bcnu who wrote (5666)	7/6/2006 7:33:34 PM
From: rrm_bcnu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8122

Further Clarification on Safe Harbor for Forward Looking Statements 1. IMO it appears that xrayviscion on RB (scionist on SI) is in error as to the actual application of the Safe Harbor provision for Forward-Looking Statements. He posts this on RB and SI, stating that "...Safe Harbor does not apply to penny stocks. By: xrayviscion 06 Jul 2006, 08:55 AM EDT Msg. 63959 of 63964 (This msg. is a reply to 63958 by shortsinlhesand.) Jump to msg. # I notice the Safe Harbor statement being quoted from PLNI PRs - but Safe Harbor does not apply to penny stocks. Section 27A -- Application of Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements … b. Exclusions. Except to the extent otherwise specifically provided by rule, regulation, or order of the Commission, this section shall not apply to a forward-looking statement-- 1. that is made with respect to the business or operations of the issuer, if the issuer— … C. issues penny stock; …. sec.gov ragingbull.lycos.com Message 22599724 2. His posted reference defines "Penny Stock" in paragraph i.3. as follows: 3. Penny stock. The term "penny stock" has the same meaning as in section 3(a)(51) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules and regulations, or orders issued pursuant to that section. 3. Section 3 (a)(51) states: 51. A. The term "penny stock" means any equity security other than a security that is- i. registered or approved for registration and traded on a national securities exchange that meets such criteria as the Commission shall prescribe by rule or regulation for purposes of this paragraph; ii. authorized for quotation on an automated quotation system sponsored by a registered securities association, if such system I. was established and in operation before January 1, 1990, and II. meets such criteria as the Commission shall prescribe by rule or regulation for purposes of this paragraph; iii. issued by an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940; iv. excluded, on the basis of exceeding a minimum price, net tangible assets of the issuer, or other relevant criteria, from the definition of such term by rule or regulation which the Commission shall prescribe for purposes of this paragraph; or v. exempted, in whole or in part, conditionally or unconditionally, from the definition of such term by rule, regulation, or order prescribed by the Commission. B. The Commission may, by rule, regulation, or order, designate any equity security or class of equity securities described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) as within the meaning of the term 'penny stock' if such security or class of securities is traded other than on a national securities exchange or through an automated quotation system described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A). C. In exercising its authority under this paragraph to prescribe rules, regulations, and orders, the Commission shall determine that such rule, regulation, or order is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. sec.gov 4. Since PLNI meets the crteria of Section 3(a)(51)(A)(ii) as being authorized for quotation on an automated quotation system, it does not meet the criteria of "penny stock" as defined above for exclusion, and thus IMO it appears to be covered under the Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements. xrayviscion/scionist attempt to state otherwise appears to me to be a gross mistake. At the very least it was poorly researched and not thoroughly investigated. Am I reading this wrong? I couldn't figure out why so many stocks trading for less than $1.00 use the Safe Harbor disclaimer if they didn't qualify to use it. Thus the investigation of the assertion. What am I missing here?