Darren's Rovell take on PWCC, etc.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Joe and CU might have lied on a Form 4 filed with the SEC? Is that what you're suggesting as a possibility such that we shouldn't take it at face value? Should we not take at face value the date (the prior day) on which the shares on which he owed tax vested? Should we not take at face value that the sales were pursuant to a 10b5-1 trading plan? And who ever lists their "motives" for selling on a Form 4 anyhow? Certain specific circumstances are typically noted, such as sales pursuant to trading plans and sales to satisfy tax obligations, but generally speaking there is no "legally mandated public explanation" of the reasons for selling.

By the way, look how many shares Joe retained versus how many he sold. End of discussion.

Come on Peter, stop it. You are distorting what I am saying, and as an attorney I'm surprised you would react that way.

I don't take as the gospel truth what a person says on a legally mandated disclosure form any more than I would someone under oath on a witness stand denying something that if he/she were to admit it would be detrimental to his/her case.

You have been excoriating PSA as much as anyone. So now we are to take a face value something said because the SEC requires it? I do not know why Joe sold his shares, and my point is it should never have been raised in the first place.

Why are we arguing over this?