Time will tell. And if it doesn't bear fruit (convictions) the good people of New York will waste lots of money on a witch hunt.Unless the investigation turns up something.
Time will tell. And if it doesn't bear fruit (convictions) the good people of New York will waste lots of money on a witch hunt.Unless the investigation turns up something.
Absolutely wrong. Going back to the Apple example, it's become clear they are hiring automotive engineers. Lot of them. A "major operational directive" by any measure. I'm a shareholder, and I can say with confidence that Apple has NOT divulged any of their research into the transportation market to me and likely never will. We'll know what their first step is when they launch a product or service, or don't. Not before. I'm equally certain they're not breaking the imaginary law you are citing.If they issue major operational directives based on the findings, they damn sure do have to report it.
http://www.soxlaw.com/s409.htmThis section is listed within Title IV of the act (Enhanced Financial Disclosures), and pertains to 'Real Time Issuer Disclosures'.
Summary of Section 409
Issuers are required to disclose to the public, on an urgent basis, information on material changes in their financial condition or operations. These disclosures are to be presented in terms that are easy to understand supported by trend and qualitative information of graphic presentations as appropriate.
I guess 1970s and 1980s research is not current and that pesky word may shows up. Last time I checked, may is not a directive word like shall or must.from the full text of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
SEC. 409. REAL TIME ISSUER DISCLOSURES.
Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
(l) REAL TIME ISSUER DISCLOSURES.—Each issuer reporting
under section 13(a) or 15(d) shall disclose to the public on a rapid
and current basis such additional information concerning material
changes in the financial condition or operations of the issuer, in
plain English, which may include trend and qualitative information
and graphic presentations, as the Commission determines, by rule,
is necessary or useful for the protection of investors and in the
public interest.
You're not knowing something doesn't make it my creation. A summary is posted above, in plain English, which is identical to my interpretation.The link between Sarbanes Oxley and R&D is indeed your creation! I'm not aware of anyone else interpreting it the way you do.
The text of the law is very consistent with what I've been saying. "Shall disclose to the public on a rapidI guess 1970s and 1980s research is not current and that pesky word may shows up. Last time I checked, may is not a directive word like shall or must.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/icelands-banksters-sentenced-74-years-prison-prosecution-u-s/when was the last time any higher up in a corporation or bank did any prison time for what they did or didn't do?
Here is what "those who did it" actually said (and it does not sound like they classified the research as "questionable"):. Questionable research, as it was classified by those who did it,
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” Croasdale told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact,” he said, nor did anyone doubt those levels would double by the middle of the 21st century.
Using the models and data from a climate change report issued by Environment Canada, Canada’s environmental agency, the team concluded that the Beaufort Sea’s open water season — when drilling and exploration occurred — would lengthen from two months to three and possibly five months.
They were spot on.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warmingAt all times," he said, "the opinions and conclusions of our scientists and researchers on this topic have been solidly within the mainstream of the consensus scientific opinion of the day and our work has been guided by an overarching principle to follow where the science leads. The risk of climate change is real and warrants action."
You are confusing research related to product development/business growth and research related to business risk. I agree with your example that Apple does not have to report research.Absolutely wrong. Going back to the Apple example, it's become clear they are hiring automotive engineers. Lot of them. A "major operational directive" by any measure. I'm a shareholder, and I can say with confidence that Apple has NOT divulged any of their research into the transportation market to me and likely never will. We'll know what their first step is when they launch a product or service, or don't. Not before. I'm equally certain they're not breaking the imaginary law you are citing.
No one can drawn a clear line between these two. Any project lies somewhere along a continuum. Going back to Apple, there are enormous risks that they'll not be successful in the transportation market, despite spending whatever they are. They report this only by detailing their R&D spending, not its findings or their strategic responses from the findings. A lost opportunity is just as big a risk as a failed business venture, but I can assure you will not read about big risks in the transportation market in Apple's annual report.You are confusing research related to product development/business growth and research related to business risk.
Yes, absolutely, but not in the form of disclosing their research. It would be noted in their outlook and guidance for future quarters, as a financial risk of higher costs and reduced margins. I do not believe they would be obligated to report the precise scientific nature of that risk, only the estimated financial impact.Take for example this example...are they obligated to report any business risk to share holders?
↑
Take for example this example...are they obligated to report any business risk to share holders?
Good. Nice to have agreement. Was ExxonMobile doing research to sell a global warming product? Or, were they doing research on risk of their on-going business like the soap company?Yes, absolutely, but not in the form of disclosing their research. It would be noted in their outlook and guidance for future quarters, as a financial risk of higher costs and reduced margins. I do not believe they would be obligated to report the precise scientific nature of that risk, only the estimated financial impact.
The story with Exxon Mobil is different. ExxonMobil was a world leader in global warming research - praise from the scientific community on methods and execution and openness. Then, they stopped. They turned on the lobbying campaign, paid for 3rd party research papers to be written, 'experts' to make claims and doubt to be cast on previously published ExxonMobil research.Again, that's a distinction without a difference. Shareholders need to be alerted to significant downside risks or shocks that may affect the financials in the short term. I don't see how Exxon's research is remotely relevant.
Less money into state gambling, we need to eliminate the competition.“It is clear that DraftKings and FanDuel are the leaders of a massive, multibillion-dollar scheme intended to evade the law and fleece sports fans across the country,” Mr. Schneiderman said, adding, “Today we have sent a clear message: not in New York, and not on my watch.”
This has been the method of law enforcement for some time. Don't go after the drug users, go after the dealers. Same with gambling operations - go after the dealers (pun intended). The gambling operations are the ones that need to be regulated and insure a fair game for all (or as fair as a business can be expected to be). In the case of Fan Duel and the like, they have already shown their hands in the cookie jars.The residents commit the crime yet, the enabler is the target. Prosecute the criminals, not the business.
Atlantic City is just another bankrupt venture started by Trump. Five of the Casinos there declared bankruptcy in 2014 and closed. I think only two are left. The Indian Reservations in Connecticut and NY are the place to go gambling if you live in NYC - Closer, newer, nicer with bigger names doing the shows. It doesn't look like NY State gets anything out of gambling as of now.I wonder what the AG thinks of those busses transporting NY residents across state lines to Atlantic city nj for the purposes of gambling.