rebutting more rehashing the stockholder compla
Post# of 1034
(Total Views: 127)
Posted On: 01/30/2019 5:01:32 PM
rebutting more rehashing
the stockholder complaint that Zion’s public statements were "materially false and misleading at all relevant times" refers only to whether zn had legal notice of an impending sec investigation-and as u yourself say thats a weak point bc the sec purposefully hides any investigation from the companies until the sec is ready to subpoena.
once zn got the subpoena, zn filed the 8k re such within the statutorily and court rule regulated time
PR's are covered by standard boiler plate forward looking statements every company relies upon
forward looking results cannot be guaranteed -everybody knows that-everybody knows the only guarantees are death and taxes
if one, via discriminatory thought processes, believes every xtian company is a scam,they will falsely impute motive and intent to the company and its officers
whatever- there is no criminal intent so the most that can happen in the sec case -absent proof of criminal intent-is a fine
such fines are usually not large and a large fine would not protect but rather harm stockholders sec is suppose to protect
if the sec really wanted to protect longs any fines would be distributed among stock holders of record as of a date certain-but i've never personally seen that happen
the stockholder complaint that Zion’s public statements were "materially false and misleading at all relevant times" refers only to whether zn had legal notice of an impending sec investigation-and as u yourself say thats a weak point bc the sec purposefully hides any investigation from the companies until the sec is ready to subpoena.
once zn got the subpoena, zn filed the 8k re such within the statutorily and court rule regulated time
PR's are covered by standard boiler plate forward looking statements every company relies upon
forward looking results cannot be guaranteed -everybody knows that-everybody knows the only guarantees are death and taxes
if one, via discriminatory thought processes, believes every xtian company is a scam,they will falsely impute motive and intent to the company and its officers
whatever- there is no criminal intent so the most that can happen in the sec case -absent proof of criminal intent-is a fine
such fines are usually not large and a large fine would not protect but rather harm stockholders sec is suppose to protect
if the sec really wanted to protect longs any fines would be distributed among stock holders of record as of a date certain-but i've never personally seen that happen
(0)
(0)