3 ms·

Does this apply to folks with personal blogs like Fred Wilson and Mark Suster or just big corporate blogs like TechCrunch and GigaOm?

by cienrak 15y ago

cube13 15y ago
It should apply to either, especially if they're using the blog to get more investors.
- cienrak 15y ago
  So is it a problem that Fred Wilson blogged for months about Kickstarter before revealing that he was an investor?
  - yock 15y ago
    I'm not a lawyer or an SEC examiner, but I think securities fraud requires an overt fradulent claim, not simply the omission of potential benefit. Had Wilson been pimping Kickstarter as a profitable company (rather than merely a really cool idea) then it might be fraud.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
hvs 15y ago
Mr. Ferrara explained, “When an investor or insider is engaged in an omission which proves to be a deception, and the result of that was a financial loss to another investor, a case for fraud can be made.” That applies to any investor or insider, regardless of where they speak publicly. So, it applies to Fred Wilson, Mike Arrington, and any other investor.
- startupcomment 15y ago
  So Fred Wilson and co. are fine as long as they do not "deceive"? I suppose that still exposes them to the possibility that they might have to defend themselves to prove that they have not "deceived"? Ah, the perils of the internet age. I wonder if general liability insurance policies cover those types of claims?
kcurtin 15y ago
Personal blogs like Fred Wilson's and Mark Suster's are less hype driven and more content driven. A TON of their content is geared towards providing the startup community and aspiring entrepreneurs with valuable information. Their content is derived from their personal experiences - the companies they invest in, advise and have created themselves - and this is why reading them is valuable. They never claim to be or are never perceived to be neutral news sources. Blogs like TechCrunch and GigaOm are more journalistic in nature - their goals and the public's perception of them is as a news source. There are certain responsibilities and standards that need to be upheld when you are a source of news that don't apply to personal blogs.
- 0x12 15y ago
  Here is the reg on public companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Fair_Disclosure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Fair_Disclosure For privately held companies there is no equivalent afaik. Especially critical is the time of transition from a privately held company to a public one (IPO). And that's good stuff. The basic idea is that everybody has access to all the information at the same time. The big issue would be if a blog or some other communication wrote 'you should buy this stock' knowing it is a lemon and unloading by someone with a hand in the creation of the blog. That's why it is good practice to fully disclose that you have a position in the companies you write about, because if you do not it may be that afterwards, long after you thought it mattered you could still be hit with a violation depending on what he stock did after you published.

Does this apply to folks with personal blogs like Fred Wilson and Mark Suster or just big corporate blogs like TechCrunch and GigaOm?

by cienrak 15y ago

Does this apply to folks with personal blogs like Fred Wilson and Mark Suster or just big corporate blogs like TechCrunch and GigaOm?

cube13 15y ago

It should apply to either, especially if they're using the blog to get more investors.

cienrak 15y ago
So is it a problem that Fred Wilson blogged for months about Kickstarter before revealing that he was an investor?
- yock 15y ago
  I'm not a lawyer or an SEC examiner, but I think securities fraud requires an overt fradulent claim, not simply the omission of potential benefit. Had Wilson been pimping Kickstarter as a profitable company (rather than merely a really cool idea) then it might be fraud.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

hvs 15y ago

Mr. Ferrara explained, “When an investor or insider is engaged in an omission which proves to be a deception, and the result of that was a financial loss to another investor, a case for fraud can be made.” That applies to any investor or insider, regardless of where they speak publicly. So, it applies to Fred Wilson, Mike Arrington, and any other investor.

startupcomment 15y ago
So Fred Wilson and co. are fine as long as they do not "deceive"? I suppose that still exposes them to the possibility that they might have to defend themselves to prove that they have not "deceived"? Ah, the perils of the internet age. I wonder if general liability insurance policies cover those types of claims?

kcurtin 15y ago

Personal blogs like Fred Wilson's and Mark Suster's are less hype driven and more content driven. A TON of their content is geared towards providing the startup community and aspiring entrepreneurs with valuable information. Their content is derived from their personal experiences - the companies they invest in, advise and have created themselves - and this is why reading them is valuable. They never claim to be or are never perceived to be neutral news sources. Blogs like TechCrunch and GigaOm are more journalistic in nature - their goals and the public's perception of them is as a news source. There are certain responsibilities and standards that need to be upheld when you are a source of news that don't apply to personal blogs.

0x12 15y ago
Here is the reg on public companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Fair_Disclosure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Fair_Disclosure For privately held companies there is no equivalent afaik. Especially critical is the time of transition from a privately held company to a public one (IPO). And that's good stuff. The basic idea is that everybody has access to all the information at the same time. The big issue would be if a blog or some other communication wrote 'you should buy this stock' knowing it is a lemon and unloading by someone with a hand in the creation of the blog. That's why it is good practice to fully disclose that you have a position in the companies you write about, because if you do not it may be that afterwards, long after you thought it mattered you could still be hit with a violation depending on what he stock did after you published.