An interesting pair of hits on the blog within the past hour:
1) Washington, DC arrived directly on post titled "Dr. Mark Kroll's arguments torn to shreds (call the SEC)" [LINK].
2) Washington, DC left via sltrib.com [LINK].
So are NASDEQ-listed companies permitted to have their Directors go out and foist one-sided propaganda onto the unwitting public, while that Director is holding 36,000 TASR stock options, potentially worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars?
I'm not an expert in SEC rules, but I know that they have a lot of rules. I can't believe that a stock-option-laden Company Director would be allowed to issue Letters to the Editor without having them go through proper corporate channels to include the usual disclaimers.
It's not the first time he's done this sort of thing. I can provide pointers to previous examples; my blog e-mail address is near the top of the right hand column.
Maybe this sort of corporate / Director behavior is allowed. But if so, then it shouldn't be.
Disclaimer: Me? I hold no financial interest in the stun gun market, or even anything even remotely related. Zero. Not paid by Amnesty International either. Nothing similar either. This blog is simply intended to address my desire to provide my input into the very important public policy taser debate, on both sides of the 49th parallel.
I thought that IPICD was Dr. (not a 'real' doctor) John Peters.
ReplyDeleteDo you mind to double-check where you've seen "Mr. Bruce L. Smith" before?
ReplyDeleteI want this blog to be as accurate as possible, even in the comment section. We need a link to the source for this connection.
Thanks.
OK. To be clear, Mr. Smith is a police training coordinator and is NOT working for IPICD. I'm going to delete some of the comments above since they are incorrect.
ReplyDelete