Comments on: Safe Harbor for Stock Pumping Scheme? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/09/safe_harbor_for.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:22:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Jon http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/09/safe_harbor_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-57151 Jon Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:00:47 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/09/safe-harbor-for-stock-pumping-scheme.html#comment-57151 I'm not trying to point out a typo, but it is really funny if the disclaimer was gramattically incorrect...see below: 'Many of these companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. You can lose all your money "buy" investing in this stock.' Shouldn't it be "by"? Looks like the boiler room hack's lawyer didn't earn his keep. I’m not trying to point out a typo, but it is really funny if the disclaimer was gramattically incorrect…see below:

‘Many of these companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. You can lose all your money “buy” investing in this stock.’

Shouldn’t it be “by”? Looks like the boiler room hack’s lawyer didn’t earn his keep.

]]> By: Dave Hoffman http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/09/safe_harbor_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-57150 Dave Hoffman Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:48:45 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/09/safe-harbor-for-stock-pumping-scheme.html#comment-57150 Safe harbors are (in my view obviously) unavailable when the cautionary language is part and parcel of the scheme to deceive. Safe harbors are (in my view obviously) unavailable when the cautionary language is part and parcel of the scheme to deceive.

]]> By: conrad erb http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/09/safe_harbor_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-57149 conrad erb Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:25:48 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/09/safe-harbor-for-stock-pumping-scheme.html#comment-57149 dave - can you give us dear readers more info re: why you think that this particular disclaimer would not protect the client? dave – can you give us dear readers more info re: why you think that this particular disclaimer would not protect the client?

]]> By: conrad erb http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/09/safe_harbor_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-57148 conrad erb Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:25:18 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/09/safe-harbor-for-stock-pumping-scheme.html#comment-57148 dave - can you give us dear readers more info re: why you think that this particular disclaimer would not protect the client? dave – can you give us dear readers more info re: why you think that this particular disclaimer would not protect the client?

]]> By: arthur http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/09/safe_harbor_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-57147 arthur Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:00:25 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/09/safe-harbor-for-stock-pumping-scheme.html#comment-57147 The disclaimer will protect the promoter from being charged under section 17(b). Why do you think it would not? The "forward looking statement" disclosure may be insufficiently specific to be effective, depending on what appeared in the ellipis. Also, it should reference section 27E of the 1934 Act, not 27B. Without those disclosures, the promoter would be in serious jeopardy. It's possible that the promoter is misrepresenting his personal belief on how the stock will perform, but that would be almost impossible to prove, so the SEC probably won't even try. This lawyer earned his keep. The disclaimer will protect the promoter from being charged under section 17(b). Why do you think it would not? The “forward looking statement” disclosure may be insufficiently specific to be effective, depending on what appeared in the ellipis. Also, it should reference section 27E of the 1934 Act, not 27B. Without those disclosures, the promoter would be in serious jeopardy. It’s possible that the promoter is misrepresenting his personal belief on how the stock will perform, but that would be almost impossible to prove, so the SEC probably won’t even try. This lawyer earned his keep.

]]>