Why bother to quote if you're not going to answer the question? I haven't made a single reference to the 'possibly criminal' bit. The prosecution in this trial will attempt to show "These purchases had no economic justification, but rather were motivated by Caldwell's personal interest and benefit". If they're successful, is that not criminal activity which would lead to further action? Also, do you imagine the subject of a court case due to hemorrhaging cash is going to lead to a rosy fund raising future for PBC? I'm not hyperventilating.
What the ****? If PBC had been in an appropriate fund, they wouldn't have had $1bn to give them, obviously.
It obviously shouldn't as you've said yourself. It raised far more money this way than it would have if it were properly placed. Do you refute that? So why was it there? A mistake by a man who Haymon hired just months later. That's what you think, correct?
yes they would have been given way less, chin is trying to make it out like it they accidently wrote pbc down on the wrong list
If you were promised a return on an investment not only can the investor sue but the advising firm will be punished and fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Quite frankly it sounds as if your pulling things out of your ass my friend. Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
also if the guy who green lighted in the investment broke a lot of company regulations and then suddenly gets a job working with the benefactor of the investment then there is defeintly reason to sue
The investment manager doesn't "green light" anything. It has to be approved. The investment manager isn't being sued. The company that approved it is being sued. PBC isn't being sued by the shareholders. Al Haymon isn't being sued by them. The investment manager isn't being sued by them. Waddell is being sued. Nobody can read.
Yeah. I do. How much less would it have earned if it was properly placed? I'd love for you to tell me.
Oh yeah? Look up the success rate for financial mismanagement cases against brokers and come back to me.
You're literally saying almost certain loss options generate as much revenue as safe ones. You're an idiot :hi:
I'm only stating that it is illegal to promise a return on an securities investment. I doubt W and R or anyone associated with PbC promised anyone anything specific. However, there was foul play involved, clearly, and heads will roll. Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
It matters not, because that didn't happen. What appears to have happened was an unfair and deceitful practice. It doesn't matter how much W&R say sorry and that it was an "accident", that shid dont fly with the SEC. Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk