Darren's Rovell take on PWCC, etc.

benjulmag · #1 07-30-2019, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Joe and CU might have lied on a Form 4 filed with the SEC? Is that what you're suggesting as a possibility such that we shouldn't take it at face value? Should we not take at face value the date (the prior day) on which the shares on which he owed tax vested? Should we not take at face value that the sales were pursuant to a 10b5-1 trading plan? And who ever lists their "motives" for selling on a Form 4 anyhow? Certain specific circumstances are typically noted, such as sales pursuant to trading plans and sales to satisfy tax obligations, but generally speaking there is no "legally mandated public explanation" of the reasons for selling.

By the way, look how many shares Joe retained versus how many he sold. End of discussion.

Come on Peter, stop it. You are distorting what I am saying, and as an attorney I'm surprised you would react that way.

I don't take as the gospel truth what a person says on a legally mandated disclosure form any more than I would someone under oath on a witness stand denying something that if he/she were to admit it would be detrimental to his/her case.

You have been excoriating PSA as much as anyone. So now we are to take a face value something said because the SEC requires it? I do not know why Joe sold his shares, and my point is it should never have been raised in the first place.

Why are we arguing over this?

Peter_Spaeth · #2 07-30-2019, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Come on Peter, stop it. You are distorting what I am saying, and as an attorney I'm surprised you would react that way.

I don't take as the gospel truth what a person says on a legally mandated disclosure form any more than I would someone under oath on a witness standard denying something that if he/she were to admit it would be detrimental to his/her case.

You have been excoriating PSA as much as anyone. So now we are to take a face value something said because the SEC requires it? I do not know why Joe sold his shares, and my point is it should never have bern raised in the first place.

Why are we arguing over this?

Because you misstated the legal disclosure requirements, and suggested we shouldn't necessarily take the Form 4 at face value when it reports clearly verifiable or falsifiable facts such as when Joe's shares vested and what his trading plan provides - points which you're ignoring. Your analogy to testimony is misplaced in my opinion.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your only point was people shouldn't speculate, you should have stopped your post right there. The rest of it clearly is insinuating the Form 4 might be false.

And yes I have very serious issues with PSA, and Joe, but that doesn't mean I am going to insinuate Joe is or may be dumping his shares and lying about the reasons or that that's even a possibility based on the documentation I have seen. This is obviously a routine securities transaction, nothing more, and you're being unfair in my opinion insinuating there is some other possibility.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your point was that people shouldn't speculate you could have ended your post right there. But you went on to suggest the possibility the Form 4 might not be truthful.

benjulmag · #3 07-30-2019, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because you misstated the legal disclosure requirements, and suggested we shouldn't necessarily take the Form 4 at face value when it reports clearly verifiable or falsifiable facts such as when Joe's shares vested and what his trading plan provides - points which you're ignoring. Your analogy to testimony is misplaced in my opinion.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your only point was people shouldn't speculate, you should have stopped your post right there. The rest of it clearly is insinuating the Form 4 might be false.

And yes I have very serious issues with PSA, and Joe, but that doesn't mean I am going to insinuate Joe is or may be dumping his shares and lying about the reasons or that that's even a possibility based on the documentation I have seen. This is obviously a routine securities transaction, nothing more, and you're being unfair in my opinion insinuating there is some other possibility.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your point was that people shouldn't speculate you could have ended your post right there. But you went on to suggest the possibility the Form 4 might not be truthful.

10b5-1 trading plans are not ends in and of themselves. They have been criticized as a potential for abuse and it has been reported that there have been SEC investigations regarding their abuse.

Yes, in the great majority of instances a person acting pursuant to one does so for plainly routine and legal reasons. And such might very well be the case here. I do not have any idea what a person is thinking when he/she devises his/her trading plan, and my point remains that I don't believe mention of Joe's sale of his stock was appropriate or relevant.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 07-30-2019, 08:58 AM

On that point we agree.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Darren Rovell	redalpha7	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	1	07-16-2019 12:47 PM
f/s Carvel �Bama� Rovell Roberto Estalella,Wes Covington signed photos	megalimey	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	8	12-16-2018 10:52 AM
RIP: Darren 'Dutch' Daulton	clydepepper	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	3	08-07-2017 11:30 PM
Do you think Darren Daulton was happy with Coach's?	tinkereversandme	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	12-10-2009 12:14 PM
Message to Darren Duet - W574 Foxx you sold me.	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	12-20-2005 07:38 PM