There also appears to be some confusion as to the hold time for individuals who purchased shares from a company who later backed into an OTCBB shell. Is the wait period six months from the time the company becomes fully reporting or does the company merely have to be fully reporting and you must have held your shares for six months?
Example: If you purchased your shares while the company was private and held them for six months and the company become fully reporting on the seventh month can your shares become free trading or do you have to wait six months from the date the company becomes fully reporting? This becomes further confusing when you take into consideration the one year hold period for shareholders when a company purchases a shell that was previously reporting as a ”shell company”. Most of these issues will be worked out as attorneys seek additional clarification of the new rule changes from the SEC.
Bookmark to:
Other posts of the serie
- Interpretation of Rule 144 – Part 1 - July 1, 2008
- Interpretation of Rule 144 – Part 2 - July 2, 2008
- Interpretation of Rule 144 – Part 3 - July 3, 2008
- Interpretation of Rule 144 – Part 4 (This post) - July 4, 2008
1 user commented in " Interpretation of Rule 144 – Part 4 "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackFirst, I think NYSE is not subject to the shell restrictions in 144, because even though they technically did a reverse merger, the company they merged with was never a shell to my knowledge. But you are right it seems to apply to Berkshire Hathaway. Also, in a reverse merger the private company guys swap their shares for shares of what was the shell. That starts a new 144 holding period and yes they must wait another year if it was a merger with a shell for 144 to be available.
Leave A Reply