(Total Views: 434)
Posted On: 11/16/2018 3:48:37 AM
Post# of 72446
The overview section further explains whom the plan is for.
I respectfully disagree that Rule 10b5-1 applies to the MFO because they don't have access to MNPI. If I'm the MFO and I read
"provided, however, that the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to sales of shares of the common stock of the Company made pursuant to a valid contract, instruction or plan that satisfies the requirements of Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act (a “10b5-1 Plan”),"
I must be wondering why the 10b5-1 Plan is written as a condition because I'm not required to provide such plan when I decide to sell. $2 isn't the point because I'm not arguing whether the plan is valid at this moment. I'm arguing why the plan is written as a condition if it doesn't apply to the MFO.
If the lawyers use the word shorting like in the Aspire agreement, there'll be no dispute in court and we wouldn't had this conversation. I've been told to "stick to science" many times when I speculated Aspire was selling. I can also say the boogeyman theory gets discredited to a certain degree by accepting the MFO is allowed to short. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this topic.
Quote:
Under Rule 10b5-1, directors and other major insiders in the company – large shareholders, officers and others who are able to access material nonpublic information (MNPI) – are able to establish a written plan that details when they will be able to buy or sell shares at a predetermined time on a scheduled basis.
I respectfully disagree that Rule 10b5-1 applies to the MFO because they don't have access to MNPI. If I'm the MFO and I read
"provided, however, that the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to sales of shares of the common stock of the Company made pursuant to a valid contract, instruction or plan that satisfies the requirements of Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act (a “10b5-1 Plan”),"
I must be wondering why the 10b5-1 Plan is written as a condition because I'm not required to provide such plan when I decide to sell. $2 isn't the point because I'm not arguing whether the plan is valid at this moment. I'm arguing why the plan is written as a condition if it doesn't apply to the MFO.
If the lawyers use the word shorting like in the Aspire agreement, there'll be no dispute in court and we wouldn't had this conversation. I've been told to "stick to science" many times when I speculated Aspire was selling. I can also say the boogeyman theory gets discredited to a certain degree by accepting the MFO is allowed to short. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this topic.
(2)
(0)
