십년간 보다는 더 많은 것에 있는 안전 소송에 그것의 가장 중요한 결정에서는 대심원 그들의 투자를 만들 때 당을 직접적으로' 통보 의지했으면 않는 한, 회사에 의해 사취된 투자자가 제3자 수 없었다는 것을 IR와 같은 지배해 은행 및 공급자를 추격할 굳게 한다. 법원은 그런 소송이 "약한 요구에 원고."가 결백한 회사에게서 타협을 강요하는 것을 허용했다는 것을 밝혔다
당연히, 기본적으로 충분한 노출은 방법에 달려 있 다는 것을 밝히는 것을 보이는 때 2000년은 10월 23일, 에 효력을 결코 없다 나타낸 규칙 계속 명확한, 당신이 해야 하는 일의 아무 세트도 없다. In other words, it’s not entirely clear what kind of clarification can be made since it seems like the issue has little to do with the form in which the info is released, but whether or not whatever form it is is accessible and likely to be seen by enough people.
SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has responded by suggesting that sure, blogs could be okay if they are clearly going to be seen and accessible, the press has turned this into a “blog” issue, about how blogs can be used for disclosure.
However, that’s not quite right and it’s not what the SEC indicated. What they basically said was that the medium doesn’t matter, the impact does. In the case of Sun, Jonathan Schwartz’s blog is widely read by the press — and thus, if he makes a statement, it will get picked up rapidly (as this very story did!).
So, it makes sense that a blog post from him (in combination with other disclosure methods) is perfectly fine. However, for the IR person at a public company with a blog no one reads, it’s clearly not at all sufficient. In the end, this isn’t a blog issue at all. The medium has nothing to do with it — only the likelihood of the disclosure being noticed and accessible to all.