Investors should keep in mind that David Dalton uses every legal loophole trick in the book, When Dalton explicitly discloses in UNVC’s reports that the company does not use social media platforms for investor disclosures, he is establishing on record that social media is not a recognized Regulation FD channel for Univec.
If he later posts commentary, operational claims, or updates on unofficial social media accounts or forums, he can point back to the formal disclosure filing and argue: "Our official filings warned investors that we do not use social media for corporate disclosures; therefore, those posts were just informal marketing or casual commentary, not official investor communications."
Just like his posting on LinkedIn stating "NO DILUTION", If regulators ever investigate an executive for making misleading statements on social media, their defense is simple: "Our official quarterly report filed on OTC Markets clearly stated in Note 7 that we issued billions of shares for debt. Investors should have read our official disclosures, not our casual social media posts."
By putting the truth in the fine-print accounting notes---where few retail traders look--- he creates a legal shield for himself while using informal posts to keep interest high.
He gets away with it because social media is treated as informal marketing, while the official disclosures carry the legal truth. As long as retail investors rely on social media posts instead of reading the official footnotes, the narrative on the forum will never match the reality on the balance sheet.
The SEC explicitly cautions that an executive's personal social media account is generally not assumed to be a recognized channel of distribution unless investors have been formally alerted to monitor that specific page
PL
If he later posts commentary, operational claims, or updates on unofficial social media accounts or forums, he can point back to the formal disclosure filing and argue: "Our official filings warned investors that we do not use social media for corporate disclosures; therefore, those posts were just informal marketing or casual commentary, not official investor communications."
Just like his posting on LinkedIn stating "NO DILUTION", If regulators ever investigate an executive for making misleading statements on social media, their defense is simple: "Our official quarterly report filed on OTC Markets clearly stated in Note 7 that we issued billions of shares for debt. Investors should have read our official disclosures, not our casual social media posts."
By putting the truth in the fine-print accounting notes---where few retail traders look--- he creates a legal shield for himself while using informal posts to keep interest high.
He gets away with it because social media is treated as informal marketing, while the official disclosures carry the legal truth. As long as retail investors rely on social media posts instead of reading the official footnotes, the narrative on the forum will never match the reality on the balance sheet.
The SEC explicitly cautions that an executive's personal social media account is generally not assumed to be a recognized channel of distribution unless investors have been formally alerted to monitor that specific page
PL
