Quote:
Originally Posted by HamsterWheel
Form Phorm's website - no doubt a place where you all fear to tread !
"Phorm's outstanding shares trade under two ticker symbols: PHRM and PHRX. The PHRM shares are subject to certain trading restrictions. The PHRX shares are unrestricted.
As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 11,370,898 PHRM shares outstanding. Of the PHRM shares, 434,000 shares were issued on 22 June, 2007, these shares remain subject to the one-year distribution compliance restrictions on sales to US persons pursuant to Regulation S under the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The remainder of our PHRM shares are not subject to distribution compliance restrictions under Regulation S. However, all our PHRM shares contain US Securities Act of 1933 legends, and absent registration, holders must have an available exemption (e.g. Rule 144) in connection with any sales to US persons.
As of 3 March, 2008, we had a total of 850,326 PHRX shares outstanding. The PHRX shares do not contain any restrictive legend. In general, these shares are freely tradable unless they are held by persons who are (or during the last three months were) affiliates of Phorm."
|
so this would enable phorm to give share options to employees of non US citizenship (eg in UK or Russia), fair enough, in return though the value of the company is reduced as the overall value of shares (both protected and Reg S combined) is reduced
and restrictions do not allow them to be return to protected status for 12 calander months (although loopholes do appear to be around to negate this restriction, like offshore companies etc)
Peter
(
as the moderator says
Nothing on this board should be accepted as any recommendation as to whether or not any person should or should not buy, sell, or otherwise invest in any company or organisation. Any reader of this forum should consult a competent advisor before any decision is reached
---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by icsys
Re more Home Office nonsense.
Consider the facts...
In a statement, the Home Office emphasised that the note should not be taken as gospel by anyone. It said: "We can't comment on the legal position of targeted online advertising services. It is up for [sic] the courts to interpret the law.
"We did prepare an informal guidance note. It should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give. It wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology."
Based on the FACT that the HO cannot say whether it is legal or not and DID NOT examine the technology nor did they instruct any technical experts to examine it, the Home Office 'note' should be withdrawn with immediate effect. they should never have given the view in the first place.
It's a good job that it was leaked into the public domain to show how incompetent the Home Office is on such matters.
They will not retract, no doubt because of the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong.
Because of this absurdity, both phorm and BT believe they can commit corporate eavesdropping without fear of redress.
|
It is the age old marketing / research classic of ask the right (preloaded) question to get the answer you want
I.E. would you want the adverts you see appear to be more relevant (most will answer yes)
as opposed to
would you mind all of your browsing interecepted, analysed and your privacy invaded to provide more relevant adverts (most will answer NO)
without knowing the exact question and information provided (very little if leaks are to be believed) we can't say how much spin both the HO and phorm have put on the Q & A