3 ms·

Seems silly for the SEC to allow that. A media embargo isn’t something legally binding...it’s more like a gentleman’s handshake AFAIK

by tempsy 7y ago

hbcondo714 7y ago
"Companies can use social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to announce key information" but Investors must be alerted[1]. TechCrunch may not qualify under this. [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-2013-51htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-2013-51htm
- nl 7y ago
  It applies to websites too: The SEC’s report of investigation confirms that Regulation FD applies to social media and other emerging means of communication used by public companies the same way it applies to company websites. The SEC issued guidance in 2008 clarifying that websites can serve as an effective means for disseminating information to investors if they’ve been made aware that’s where to look for it. (in the same document)
  - jhiesey 7y ago
    Isn't that referring to publishing earnings on the company's own website or social media they control, not on independent publishers like TechCrunch?
    - vasco 7y ago
      It could be TechCrunch but investors would have to have known in advance that's where the numbers will be published.
qeternity 7y ago
If there’s an accompanying NDA then it is legally binding. Same thing happens with the Fed, EIA, USDA, BLS, etc
- tempsy 7y ago
  I don’t think that’s how media embargos work, meaning no signed NDAs. It’s usually just a journalist telling a company rep a verbal “yes I agree to the embargo”.
  - dannyw 7y ago
    Verbal agreements are very much legally binding, especially if it is in writing (e.g. over email).
    - insulfrable 7y ago
      Did you seriously write this?
      - nothal 7y ago
        This doesn't contribute to conversation at all and seems to be implying something that's incorrect. Verbal agreement (e.g. even telling someone out loud "I agree to do this for you for $10") is a form of legal contract. Enforceability/provability is a different story but legally that's a contract.
        badfrog 7y ago
        > seems to be implying something that's incorrect I think they were referring to the contradiction of "verbal agreement... especially if it's in writing." But yeah, the snarky comment does not help anybody with anything.
        dmurray 7y ago
        An agreement in writing is usually a verbal agreement, so it's not even wrong. Perhaps someone meant to contrast an oral agreement with a written one.
        7y ago

Seems silly for the SEC to allow that. A media embargo isn’t something legally binding...it’s more like a gentleman’s handshake AFAIK

by tempsy 7y ago

Seems silly for the SEC to allow that. A media embargo isn’t something legally binding...it’s more like a gentleman’s handshake AFAIK

hbcondo714 7y ago

"Companies can use social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to announce key information" but Investors must be alerted[1]. TechCrunch may not qualify under this. [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-2013-51htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-2013-51htm

nl 7y ago
It applies to websites too: The SEC’s report of investigation confirms that Regulation FD applies to social media and other emerging means of communication used by public companies the same way it applies to company websites. The SEC issued guidance in 2008 clarifying that websites can serve as an effective means for disseminating information to investors if they’ve been made aware that’s where to look for it. (in the same document)
- jhiesey 7y ago
  Isn't that referring to publishing earnings on the company's own website or social media they control, not on independent publishers like TechCrunch?
  - vasco 7y ago
    It could be TechCrunch but investors would have to have known in advance that's where the numbers will be published.

qeternity 7y ago

If there’s an accompanying NDA then it is legally binding. Same thing happens with the Fed, EIA, USDA, BLS, etc

tempsy 7y ago
I don’t think that’s how media embargos work, meaning no signed NDAs. It’s usually just a journalist telling a company rep a verbal “yes I agree to the embargo”.
- dannyw 7y ago
  Verbal agreements are very much legally binding, especially if it is in writing (e.g. over email).
  - insulfrable 7y ago
    Did you seriously write this?
    - nothal 7y ago
      This doesn't contribute to conversation at all and seems to be implying something that's incorrect. Verbal agreement (e.g. even telling someone out loud "I agree to do this for you for $10") is a form of legal contract. Enforceability/provability is a different story but legally that's a contract.
      - badfrog 7y ago
        > seems to be implying something that's incorrect I think they were referring to the contradiction of "verbal agreement... especially if it's in writing." But yeah, the snarky comment does not help anybody with anything.
        dmurray 7y ago
        An agreement in writing is usually a verbal agreement, so it's not even wrong. Perhaps someone meant to contrast an oral agreement with a written one.
        7y ago