3 ms·
Today's Money Stuff ponders another angle of this: whether those companies would be committed securities fraud by abiding by such a request: > I do not think t
by paulgb 8y ago
Today's Money Stuff ponders another angle of this: whether those companies would be committed securities fraud by abiding by such a request:
> I do not think that the securities laws explicitly allow companies to make false statements of material fact if required for national security, but you could see giving them a pass here.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-04/computer-spies-hacked-reality https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-04/computer-...
- adventured 8y agoWhat if the story is bigger than Bloomberg or anyone else publicly knows at this point? That is, if the government turned over this rock and found something worse. The US Government could easily find it in its self-interest to make a deal, involving the SEC, on a national security basis, to allow Amazon and Apple to go the denial route with the US Government giving them guarantees regarding fallout. If it's worse than Bloomberg has reported, it would be highly desirable by the US Government to keep the rest as quiet as possible for as long as possible, to get at as much of what China is doing as possible. They might be running a counter intel program by now that relies on something China was doing.
- fermienrico 8y agoWhat you're talking about is fantasy. "The US Government could easily find it in its self-interest to make a deal, involving the SEC, on a national security basis, to allow Amazon and Apple to go the denial route with the US Government giving them guarantees regarding fallout." Can you point out a legal mechanism for this to be possible?
- Varcht 8y agoUnofficially, the policy is called "Too Big to Fail".