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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Eutro ( EUTO ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2028)	12/2/1997 9:16:00 PM
From: Theo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12043

Agreed they are not "true" insiders. But, reading the SEC rules, if someone owns at least a 10% stake, then they are also required to file same as a "true" insider. Summaries will list whether it is an officer or principal in the company, whereas, if they list an "unknown" it is generally considered to be someone who owns at least a 10% stake-private or otherwise. That is reading it "straight from the book". Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how that applies to non-reporting companies and to contract situations. My feeling (which has no basis in law<g>) is that stock shares are stock shares. If they (the companies) held that large of a stake, they would still need to legally file to release those shares for sale. Either because they were "restricted"(the law is very firm here), or because of the percentage of stock owned. As I said before, it doesn't matter now. What they did was illegal ie., breech of contract. Not filing certainly wouldn't make a difference. If someone out there has a law background or SEC background, clairification would be most welcome! :) Theo