Kind of odd how the SEC had no problem with LinkedIn spruiking...

Kind of odd how the SEC had no problem with LinkedIn spruiking to the world that it was going to list on the NASDAQ, right up to the day it actually did list, (and in the process assuring a huge listing price), but for some reason PRR says that the SEC didn't like the idea of PRR spruiking to the world its plans to list...

(and if some one says it has something to do with PRR being a foreign company, then prove it to me and everyone else here..)(and yes, I understand that the placement and SPP could not be marketed to US investors, but that is unrelated to the listing)

All we have been told is what the company wants us to believe - some vague request or directive coming from the SEC - but no where has the company stated that marketing the listing is in contravention of some type of securities law in the USA - and the SEC isn't a discretionary organisation, it operates pursuant to clear legislation.

In my view, as in the case of LinkedIn, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with pre-marketing an immainent listing on the NASDAQ

In my view, the company has changed direction and is stalling the listing, and has used the excuse of some vague SEC directive or request as an excuse to turn down the talk of listing on the NASDAQ, because the company simply doesn't want to list at the moment.

I welcome anyone who can show me and everyone else here, US legislation that forbids a company planning to list on the NASDAQ, mentioning it publicly at any stage prior to listing.

These are my opinions only.

good luck