3 ms·
It’s not a dysfunctional law. It seems perfectly reasonable for a company to have additional responsibilities as a seller of shares. It seems quite ludicrous fo
by TimPC 3y ago
It’s not a dysfunctional law. It seems perfectly reasonable for a company to have additional responsibilities as a seller of shares. It seems quite ludicrous for the company to be liable when a third party sells shares even if that third party is an employee. It’s not that the share inherently comes with additional protections it’s that there are additional responsibilities based on who the seller is.
I think if a company failing to publish certain disclosures forced people to hold and not sell their shares until such time as the disclosures could be made people would be outraged.
- brookst 3y agoBut if the company is misrepresenting facts, shouldn’t it at least have liability to that third party? I guess maybe this case leaves that open?
- usr1106 3y agoAt least the day they go public they should be liable the same way for the information they give. It does not make the new owner or the share any different that it was originally sold before the company was listed.