Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SBMC" data-source="post: 2756972" data-attributes="member: 30040">Of course – ever seen or been part of one of the scores of lawsuits that follow; many of them based upon this very fact – the company said “best XYZ ever” and did not produce. Ever look at the pending legalities of a major corporation? Ever look at the pending legalities involving securities trading? If you did your statement would change.I have – did it for years – do now. Your statement is true in that SOME companies do it and it is when they are typically falling down. But then again in those rare cases the companies really had little to loose – as the “company” was liable and they knew they were going down. NOW the PEOPLE are liable; very different story. I know since I was directly effected and still am by the regulatory and legal changes.I was not privy to the exact language used; I had been told it was not “best year ever for D&D” but instead “best year ever for WoTC” or something that indicated that it was related to sales and the like. If this is true; then your statement is also true.They would not call him – they would call Hasbro (it has deeper pockets). If say D&D had a bad year; fewer players per polling, low sales, lower revenue, etc. then he could be held liable (as in most financial things being negative not positive). Noting the COULD. As you noted above there could be one item he can claim that it is connected to.From a legal standpoint unless he is talking inside his own home or to a professional bound by confidentiality laws; it is irrelevant. Him saying this on the commuter train home so others can hear is just as bad as him saying it at an investor conference. Why? Because it is far more than what goes on in the investor conferences that effects stock price, price of debt, lines of credit etc. “word on the street” is the term used in investment circles.People do it. Take a look at the financials again (I will note I never looked at Hasbro’s). You will note someplace the reserves for legalities and legality payouts. At the very least with the business they are in (kids) they have a healthy chunk in there. To note I NEVER said he was being deceptive or dishonest; I was supporting him. All of my responses came from folks actually saying, to effect, that “…he, like all big company guys, is lying for some great evil purpose. You can believe me - I have a crystal ball!” (ByronD said it far better than I could (see his post above)).---To support this, note to all; privately held companies are subject to very different disclosure requirements than a corporation that is publicly traded (as in on the NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX, ext. Public companies have to report almost everything to everyone. Private companies do not – and they can lie without incurring the same legal risks as public companies; seeing as investors are unaffected (unless of course one of the co-holders of that private company is affected…doubtful scenario). They are still subject to advertising legalities however.</blockquote>

Verification