Google Creators Interviewed by Playboy
Cristiano wrote in to say that an interview with the creators of Google is appearing in the latest Playboy Magazine. That in and of itself is of little note, until one realizes that the issue of Playboy in question is already en route to subscribers and hits newsstands tomorrow, the same day that their IPO auction begins. News.com.com speculates that the SEC may be interested, since this could be a breach of the "quiet period" companies must endure before going public. It may also be nothing but a mistake in scheduling, but it has cast doubts on Google's IPO for some.
I'm not a westerner, but please don't tell me there's something entrenched in law about buying a playboy before 9am.
Sorry to disappoint, but in sixteen states it is illegal to buy pornography on all of sunday, or between 2am and 9am unless it's a saturday.
yes it does make it easier, because the quiet period doesn't begin when you know when you're going to file. it explicitly begins *when* you file your s1 of sb2 and extends 25 days after the stock starts trading.
Also, the timing of the articles release is only important if it occurs before the the SEC has approved the IPO. Once the IPO is approved (the prospectus is kosher and all) the companies are allowed to advertise.
Also, since Google should be a 12(g) company -- they have to report to the SEC becuase they have over 500 shareholders in a class of stock and a super-bung-load of revenue more than necessary to meet the requirement -- i'm pretty sure that as long as this interview is typical of other interviews they give it would be all good as long as they don't specifically plug the IPO. A reporting company is allowed to keep thier normal amount of advertising and such before an impending IPO, they just are not supposed to inflate thier publicity efforts before they get SEC approval for the offering.
You know it is sad, i'm procrastinating studing for my Securities Regulation final by blabering about Securities Regulation on Slashdot. And if you learn anything from the above post it should be that I am NOT qualified to give legal advice.