beilcen
|
posted on October 28, 2001 12:12:43 AM new
Quiet Period - This period starts once a company has filed its S-1 or SB-2 form with the SEC and extends 25 days after the company's stock has started trading on the open market. During this time the company and Syndicate are prohibited from making any statements which are not included in the Prospectus. That is, the company may not say or do anything which might affect the IPO or the stock's performance in the Aftermarket.
I cannot believe PayPal continues to post on message boards during the quiet period.
|
loggia
|
posted on October 28, 2001 10:23:01 PM new
It seems questionable.
|
uaru
|
posted on October 28, 2001 11:35:47 PM new
I cannot believe PayPal continues to post on message boards during the quiet period.
Imagine my horror when I called PayPal customer support as a test of the "quiet period" and someone answered the phone!
Don't take my word for it, call them yourself. The horror, the horror!!!
|
Coonr
|
posted on October 29, 2001 06:21:06 AM new
urau,
You should know from all the posts here, that customer srvice is precieved as a bunch of babbling idiots, who accomplish nothing, so there is no way they could "say or do anything which might affect the IPO or the stock's performance in the Aftermarket" so that shouldn't count.....
[ edited by Coonr on Oct 29, 2001 06:23 AM ]
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on October 29, 2001 06:40:08 AM new
there is no way they could "say or do anything which might affect the IPO or the stock's performance in the Aftermarket"
I don't know about that- based on the problems people have posted about here, it's possible an encounter with PayPal "customer service" could have quite an impact on one's impression of the competency of the company in general.
|
loggia
|
posted on October 29, 2001 09:22:28 AM new
Uaru, I don't think you understand what the quiet period is.
|
uaru
|
posted on October 29, 2001 10:52:20 AM new
Uaru, I don't think you understand what the quiet period is.
Well, if you feel Damon's assitance to customer's questions, complaints, or problems "seems questionable" in regards an SEC violation then I figured you'd apply the same logic to the customer support center.
Since you feel it is questionable why don't you file a complaint, you know the process, that's that thing you keep urging others to do, in your endless hounding tactics. 
|
loggia
|
posted on October 29, 2001 11:01:21 AM new
A customer calling PayPal is a private transaction. A posting on a public forum is a public transaction.
As far as "hounding" goes, I guess I am in esteemed company along with the state of NY, CA, MasterCard, VISA...
|
paypaldamon
|
posted on October 29, 2001 02:53:41 PM new
Hi,
A quiet period extends to information about the company and the release of financials (pro or con)...it would also have to do with trying to pump up the value of the company/sway potential investor opinion, which I am not doing at all.
It has nothing to do with answering customer questions/getting customer issues resolved---we have been doing it all along. The information I provide here is no different than if you had contacted customer service.
|
Coonr
|
posted on October 29, 2001 03:12:23 PM new
it's possible an encounter with PayPal "customer service" could have quite an impact on one's impression of the competency of the company in general.
So are you saying thequiet period means the company cannot function durin this time. Like the advice given Loggia, report it.
|
loggia
|
posted on October 29, 2001 03:20:13 PM new
Damon, your simple mention the other day of the processing error that affected 16 customers - if this is not included in the prospectus that could be considered a breach of the quiet period.
I'm not going to round-and-round with the PayPalies, but the posting here during the quiet period is another example of PayPal's inexperience.
|
roofguy
|
posted on October 29, 2001 04:05:01 PM new
Pure slur.
|
paypaldamon
|
posted on October 29, 2001 04:23:07 PM new
Hi loggia,
This may surprise you, but I have already met with our legal team about what can/can't be discussed. It may also surprise you that the legal team often reviews my comments (well before the process started) in the forums.
|
Retired2late
|
posted on October 29, 2001 05:21:56 PM new
They admitted their inexperience in the prospectus.
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on October 29, 2001 08:00:17 PM new
Pure slur.
roofguy on merchant account providers:
roofguy posted on October 28, 2001 08:42:40 AM
---------------------------------------------
Providers of merchant accounts have traditionally misstated the actual mechanisms to new customers.
roofguy on the banking system in general:
roofguy posted on October 8, 2001 10:08:50 AM
---------------------------------------------
the banking system can be expected to drop the ball at every possible opportunity.
pot-kettle-black
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Oct 29, 2001 08:01 PM ]
|
pyth00n
|
posted on October 30, 2001 06:55:12 AM new
PPD, are you willing to assert that this Mr hoofguy, err roofguy, has no connection to PP and therefore is not bound in any way by quiet period rules, if such a quiet period exists?
|
uaru
|
posted on October 30, 2001 07:48:46 AM new
pyth00n, are you willing to assert that ******, ******, *******, and ****** have no affiliation with a competitor and are using the message board to their company's agenda?
BTW, if you feel I'm an employee of PayPal or anyone else you could report that, but the coin has two sides. For the record my only association with PayPal is that of a customer.
[ edited by uaru on Oct 30, 2001 07:53 AM ]
|
vargas
|
posted on October 30, 2001 12:00:56 PM new
uaru Isn't that a question for the competitors? I doubt pyth00n is in any position to assertain the employment status of members of this board.
PayPalDamon, on the other hand, is in a very good position to answer the question posed by pyth00n.
(And I have no affiliation with PayPal or any of its competitors, except as a customer.)
edited for UBB
[ edited by vargas on Oct 30, 2001 12:03 PM ]
|
uaru
|
posted on October 30, 2001 01:04:30 PM new
Damon has answer that in the past, more than once.
Damon Roofguy, to the best of my knowledge, is not a PayPal employee. Company policy prohibits employees from posting without the consent of the Communications department.
Yes the issue of employees posting would be a serious offense, and the knife cuts both ways. There are some aspects of AW's requirement of a positive ID via a credit card that might be of value.
So we we start calling one another shills of a company or what? I welcome AW to contact me if proof is needed as to my non-affiliation.
|
vargas
|
posted on October 31, 2001 10:13:56 AM new
a positive ID via a credit card
A credit card alone hardly provides positive proof of anyone's identity... online or in person.
|
paypaldamon
|
posted on October 31, 2001 05:51:51 PM new
Hi,
Roofguy, to the best of my knowledge, is not a PayPal employee. Employees that post in forums need to have consent of the communications department, as well as the fact they have to identify themselves as an employee.
|
