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.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SteveF who wrote (15450)	12/16/2011 1:53:13 PM
From: bangBang602	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53574

No they are not. You also heard about the positive news set to be released next Thurs with an 8k? We must have he same contacts.

To: SteveF who wrote (15450)	12/16/2011 2:06:02 PM
From: greg s	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

*re: Good chance of more news before mid-next week, if ya catch my drift, wink, wink, nod, nod, nudge, nudge.* I hope so. I sure would like to see "Con war" (spell it backwards) get a Christmas present.

To: SteveF who wrote (15450)	12/16/2011 6:59:48 PM
From: old 'n cranky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Believe it or not they weren't even REQUIRED to report the original Wells Notice. dealbook.nytimes.com " Regulation S-K, Item 103, deals with disclosure of “legal proceedings,” and it requires a company to do the following: Describe briefly any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the registrant or any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is the subject. Include the name of the court or agency in which the proceedings are pending, the date instituted, the principal parties thereto, a description of the factual basis alleged to underlie the proceeding and the relief sought. Include similar information as to any such proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities. An S.E.C. investigation is not a “pending legal proceeding,” and it is arguable that a Wells notice does not yet meet the standard for disclosure, although its clear threat of litigation brings it much closer to something that would be material to investors. The fact that the S.E.C. rule specifically identifies governmental litigation supports disclosing the Wells notice, but no company has even been found in violation of the disclosure rules for not doing so." Goldman Sachs didn't file an 8-K.......no disclosure violation, but if I remember right some of the shareholders didn't think much of it.....class action. Logic might suggest that a Wells sent to JB would be reported, but the law doesn't require it. Given the history of this company's "transparency", he may have received one already.