RE:RE:RE:RE:"Lawsuits"I'm not exactly sure where you get your information but 10b-5 plans apply extraterritorially, so no, they do not have to be held "on-shore." What a ridicolous idea that you can skirt insider trading laws by simply holding the shares in a offshore account.
It's pretty fun on this board , I didn't realize you actually believe what you type here haha I thought you were just bashing.
LaticelnExile wrote: colt. If Thompson sold them on the open market he couldn't very well have played the "remorseful" CEO... For him to sell under a 10b-5 the the beneficial share ownership of the shares could not be off-shore. In the future, please be respectful in your language if want me to respond to your posts. You may be further embarrased in the future by referring to my posts as "deluded ramblings" or that "a concept may be a little too much to wrap my head around." Perhaps, since you are the one with the cost base of over $20 that you should be more congizant of the message and not attack the messenger. I can understand your frustration, what is this ... the tenth day in the red, even when the markets are green.... And that makes you underwater by how much? This stock just can't seem to find a bottom, can it?
colt451 wrote: Do you think before you type? There is 0 evidence apart from your deluded ramblings that the OSC or the SEC is investigating Concordia. Though Valeant is being investigated and sued for fraud but is trading at higher multiple's - that may be a little too much for you to wrap your head around since you still seem hung up on the margin call.
Let me explain this to you slowly. If Thompson wanted to sell the shares he could simply sell them on the open market. Taking out a loan with the shares as collateral was not a put, if you think that is what a put is you need to exit the market as soon as possible. Thompson also could have placed the sell at $20 for the shares and saved twice as much money.
No, any half intelligent person would quickly realize that a margin call at $12 was unexpected. Moreover, he could not cover because that is insider trading, which would attract OSC and SEC investigations. The pre-agreed upon sale was no different than a 10b-5 plan, and if Thompson wanted to unload every share he owned, he could have legally registered a 10B-5 plan to sell every share during the blackout period at a predetermined price without it ever being illegal in the slightest.
A lawyer? It barely seems like you understand simple finance and securities concepts, I don't think anyone is confusing you with a lawyer. . But continue rambling on.
PROtrading wrote: Nice try with the BS Colt451, Try again.
A quick check proves you'll full of it. Just because the latest guy don't have a web site or might not be prepared, doesn't mean the other guys or the SEC/OSC aren't getting prepared.
And who's going to pay for this? Well shareholders!
That whole "loan secured against shares that will be insider sold" doesn't sit well with me and neither does the massive failed guidance from last quarter or the "buyout" rumours leaked to the press by "sources close to the company". If I lost a lot of money, I would research the
//www.rosenlegal.com/cases-939.html