I'm just saying that maybe PJ is making more out of this than she
should.
You're hung up on the timing and ignoring PJ's main
statement.
(1) The statement was made publicly by an officer of Sun.
(2)
The officer's statements were endorsed by Sun in an SEC filing, indicating that
the remainder of Sun's officers and Board of Directors were aware of the blog
and statements therein.
(3) Previous material statements were not corrected
at the time of endorsement. Sun had a duty to do so if they believed Schwartz'
statements incorrect.
(4) Timing of the 10-K is irrelevant. It's existence
(hence, endorsement of past and future statements) is the crucial fact.
PJ
is correct that endorsement of Schwartz' statements by the officers and Board of
Directors is material and significant. It throws out any argument that the Board
of Directors were unaware of the statements made by Schwartz.
As a side
note, regarding your argument with respect to 10-Q (quarterly) and 10-K (annual)
filings. 10-Q's are produced internally and are unaudited. 10-K's
are audited. If you want the real scoop, look to the 10-K annual
audited report.
-- nyarlathotep
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
