Dave wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:11:01 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


While market manipulation is a violation, neither forgiveness of loans to
officer nor sale of stock at a discount in a private placement is.

That's odd, on the front page of the Boston Globe Monday was a story
about how the SEC is investigating the timing of stock option grants
relative to good news. And these were long term vesting grants offered
at full value, not 40% discount.


You're continuing to demonstrate your ignorance of the area, Jeff. Most
stock options are granted under incentive stock option plans that for tax
reasons require the option price to be the market price on the date of the
grant, that don't allow exercise for some period of time, and that have
registration statements in effect covering resales. This is a totally
different animal from purchase of unregistered stock in an unregistered
offering, where the purchaser puts up his money immediately, is at risk from
day 1 and can't resell for at least a year. In those transactions there is
nearly always a significant discount to market.


You continue to miss the point that I'm not talking about legalities,
but whether these activities fall under "squeaky clean." Forgiven loans
and generous option plans and discounted stock sales are a way healthy
companies reward performance and promote loyalty. Harken never made
money for its stockholders, only for its executives. The stock that
Bush received at a 40% discount in '89 was what he dumped immediately
after being told of the company's deteriorating financial condition in
June '90. It does not appear there was any restriction on its sale then.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:23:06 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


The stock that
Bush received at a 40% discount in '89 was what he dumped immediately
after being told of the company's deteriorating financial condition in
June '90. It does not appear there was any restriction on its sale then.


It seems like you're agreeing with me


If he bought it from the issuer other than in a public offering, it would be
"restricted securities" and could not be sold into the market without
registration for at least a year after he bought it.

I think it was less then a year - it was certainly under 1.5 years.
However, I think the company may have gone public during the year, and
the stock might have been converted to a liquid form.

After a year it could
be sold into the market in amounts not exceeding 1% of the outstanding
shares in any 3 month period, and then only if he did not know of any
material information that hadn't been publicly disclosed.

You mean like the company may have to shut down in a week?

After two years
(IIRC it was 3 years in 1990) it could be sold into the market in unlimited
amounts only after he had not been an officer or director for at least 90
days. Otherwise he'd be limited to the 1%.

Again, I'm not sure but I think it was over 1%.


If the stock was sold in violation of these rules, the buyers of the stock
would have been entitled to get their money back regardless of whether the
SEC did anything about it.


Perhaps the buyer had reasons not to complain.

Of course he could sell it at any time to an individual in a private
transaction (as opposed to into the market).

I assume it was such a sale - one person, a Texan I think, was
identified as the buyer.

That sale would generally be at
a discount to market because the buyer would be locked up for a period of
time.

True, but in the case it appears he paid a hefty premium.


If the were today instead of 14 years ago I could tell just what the story
is because the filings would be on the SEC's EDGAR site. But 1990 is
pre-EDGAR.

You're assuming all of the appropriate papers were filed with the SEC.

Dave wrote:
One can only reach that conclusion of he deliberately blinds himself to the
facts.


By "facts" of course you mean Republican pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda.


Do a Google search on "'trial lawyers' democrats contributions and look
through the results.

Why bother? You've shown in the past that you cannot accept any
reasonable standard of proof, and regard the most blatantly slanted
and/or false pro-Bush/Cheney malarkey as Gospel.

.. I challenge you to find a single report that
contradicts the propositions that the trial lawyers are among the highest
contributors to Democrats

What about unions and pharmaceutical companies? Oh, you mean "other than
that."


.. and that contributions by trial lawyers to
Democrats far exceed their contributions to Republicans.


Let's see...

You're in the position of insisting that your bull****.... inspired by
paid political advertising... is "truth" and challenging me to prove
otherwise, whereas you have presented no proof yourself... other than
the bull**** advertising shills.

You got it backwards. Go peddle your bull**** to somebody else.

DSK

Dave wrote:
Find a single report from a source you trust contradicting the
proposition that trial lawyer are among the highest contributors to the
Dems.

How about just lawyers and law firms in general: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=K01

Looks like your colleagues generally prefer the Dems? Why is that?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:33:15 -0500, Martin Baxter said:


How about just lawyers and law firms in general: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=K01

Looks like your colleagues generally prefer the Dems? Why is that?


Who's protecting their pocketbooks?


Are you a psychiatrist?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:

... I repeat the challenge. Don't rely on the sources I
cite. Find a single report from a source you trust contradicting the
proposition that trial lawyer are among the highest contributors to the
Dems.


Now you're backpedaling again. The issue is not how much "trial lawyers"
give to the Democratic Party but how much *more* they give to that party
than to the Republicans.

I take it that you are losing confidence in your propaganda.

DSK

May I make a suggestion, Dave?

Why continue to argue with a loser like DSK who demonstrates
time and time again that he has his own set of 'facts' which he
believes in contrary to any and all evidence to the contrary.

Arguing with a loser like DSK only results in his ridiculous
positions gaining some credibility by association in treating with
you and your, superior and rational positions.

The way to talk to a liberal is to state only the facts. Stating
the most pertinent facts first is often the end of the discussion.

In Doug's case, as in the case of most liberals, the most pertinent
fact is DSK is a loser and his views are wrong and have been
rejected by the American electorate.

CN


"Dave" wrote in message news
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:20:56 -0500, DSK said:

... I repeat the challenge. Don't rely on the sources I
cite. Find a single report from a source you trust contradicting the
proposition that trial lawyer are among the highest contributors to the
Dems.


Now you're backpedaling again. The issue is not how much "trial lawyers"
give to the Democratic Party but how much *more* they give to that party
than to the Republicans.

I take it that you are losing confidence in your propaganda.

You take it wrong in two respects. First I remain confident that trial
lawyers are among the largest contributors to the Dems, and are not among
the largest contributors to the Republicans. Second in labeling my sources
"propaganda." In fact I've read it in numerous places, and have invited you
to independently verify that conclusion or find contrary evidence--an
invitation you have not taken up. Instead, you've now added a claim that
trial lawyers are among the largest contributors to the Republicans. Have
you any authority at all for that proposition? What is it, because I haven't
been able to locate it. In fact Martin points us to a source indicating that
73% of all contributions by lawyers and law firms in the 2004 election cycle
went to Democrats. My 35 years practice tells me that lawyers who practice
corporate law or intellectual property law are more likely to be Republican
than are trial lawyers. Yet even when their contributions are thrown in they
are far outweighed by the big contributions from ATLA's PAC and the
individual contributions from members of the tort and class action bars.

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

May I make a suggestion, Dave?

Why continue to argue with a loser like DSK who demonstrates
time and time again that he has his own set of 'facts' which he
believes in contrary to any and all evidence to the contrary.

Arguing with a loser like DSK only results in his ridiculous
positions gaining some credibility by association in treating with
you and your, superior and rational positions.

The way to talk to a liberal is to state only the facts. Stating
the most pertinent facts first is often the end of the discussion.

In Doug's case, as in the case of most liberals, the most pertinent
fact is DSK is a loser and his views are wrong and have been
rejected by the American electorate.

Oh now you've done it. You've ****ed Dougie off, calling him a liberal.

Of course you're absolutely, 100% accurate. But let's not let truth
obfuscate DSK's ongoing tantrum, contending that he is a conservative.

Max