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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (5149)3/17/1998 8:11:00 PM
From: S Shaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18691
 
Roger et al:

Lawsuits such as these are prosecuted and defended primarily by lawyers charging an hourly rate which is up in the ozone layer by my standards. (I am a lawyer who has, until this year, regularly accepted court appointed criminal cases for $30 to $45 per hour)

I can assure you that in cases such as Roger alludes to, the only winners are the lawyers. All the more reason for keeping this place clean and civil.

Scott



To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (5149)3/18/1998 12:56:00 AM
From: Shoe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18691
 
Roger and all, it is not correct to say there is "no law against hype or outright falsehoods in support of a stock except by insiders." For example, Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, comparable provisions of state securities law, mail and wire fraud statutes, and the common law of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, all can reach those who are not insiders. Under Rule 10b-5 any false or misleading statement by anyone "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a security may be actionable. Obvious cases are brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and accountants, but others may be liable as well -- not only for outright falsehoods but also for truthful statements that are so incomplete as to be misleading, or for predictions without reasonable grounds, for example. Granted, negative comments involve the additional risk of actions by the affected companies on grounds of defamation or related theories. Even the expression of opinions may be alleged to imply the existence of facts that would support them. I agree that the truthfulness of a statement, even if demonstrable, is not a guarantee against liability; however, the First Amendment and common law provide substantial protection for truthful statements, even if negative, where the speaker does not have a duty to maintain the information secret, and does not omit facts necessary under the circumstances to make the statements not misleading.
Your points about the expense of successful defense, and that all posts should be considered as potential evidence in a court of law, are certainly sound, and as for calling anything a scam, I would suggest the only safe approach is to wait until the promoters are in prison for fraud and the U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in their case. -- Shoe