In a Facebook post, Hastings announced that Netflix users have streamed 4 billion hour in the past 3 months. Of course, he would probably argue that this type of tidbit isn’t really material information anyway – but it’s nearly identical to the post that got him in trouble with the SEC last December.

Hastings posted that Netflix users were now streaming 1 billion hours of content per month, and that ruffled the SEC’s feathers. They claimed that it violated Regulation Fair Disclosure, as the bit of info didn’t come in an official filing or press release. Hastings hit back, saying that 1.) it wasn’t really material and 2.) Facebook does count as a network for disclosure.

The SEC eventually cleared Hastings of all wrongdoing in the incident, and updated their rules to allow for social media as a dispersion channel for investor info – so long as the company alerts investors beforehand that they will be using the social media channels.

And on Wednesday, Netflix revealed that they would be doing just that in a regulatory filing.

“The information we post on social media could be deemed to be material information…In light of the SEC’s guidance, we encourage investors, the media, and others interested in our company to review the information we post on the U.S. social media,” said Netflix.

It looks like this is the future of social media disclosure. Here’s Netflix CEO Reed Hastings informing his 264,000 followers on Facebook that Netflix users have streamed over 4 billion hours of content in the last three months. It turns out to be only part of a post that references House of Cards and the upcoming Hemlock Grove. Oh, and it’s not even a status update, really. It’s additional comment on a link that he posted.

Reed Hastings1 hour ago

House of Cards fav quote: “look at the bigger picture.” Over the last three months, you all watched over 4 billion hours on Netflix. Next up, some real monsters from Eli Roth…

Netflix series Hemlock Grove: 'People want their horror horrific,' says Eli Roth

Powered by socialditto  77 likes ·  0 comments

On Wednesday, Netflix told investors via a regulatory filing that it plans to disclose material investor information via social media channels.

This includes Twitter, Facebook, and its own blogs. It specifically mentioned CEO Redd Hastings’ Facebook page as a source of possible disclosure, fitting since the whole controversy surrounding the SEC and social media disclosures began with Hastings.

Last week, the SEC concluded a report into the Facebook activities of Reed Hastings. Back in December of 2012, Hastings ran afoul of the SEC when he posted information to his Facebook page that the SEC deemed material. What he said was that Netflix had just topped 1 billion hours of streaming per month.

The SEC claimed that the Facebook post violated Regulation Fair Disclosure, as the material information didn’t appear in an official filing or a press release or some other form of traditional notification channel. Hastings hit back with a two-pronged approach. First, he didn’t think the post constituted “material” investor info. And second, and more importantly, social media is a proper channel for any sort of disclosures – especially his own page which sports over 260,000 followers, many of which are journalists.

The SEC eventually cleared Hastings of any wrongdoing and took the opportunity to update their own policies regarding social media disclosures. The new rules say that it’s fine, as long as the company makes it known to investors beforehand that they will be using the social accounts for such purposes.

Netflix, in its filing, makes that clear:

“The information we post on social media could be deemed to be material information…In light of the SEC’s guidance, we encourage investors, the media, and others interested in our company to review the information we post on the U.S. social media.”

[Wall Street Journal (paywall)]

“The SEC’s report of investigation confirms that Regulation FD applies to social media and other emerging means of communication used by public companies the same way it applies to company websites,” says the SEC.

The SEC didn’t recognize company websites as proper disclosure channels until 2008.

“One set of shareholders should not be able to get a jump on other shareholders just because the company is selectively disclosing important information,” said George Canellos, Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Most social media are perfectly suitable methods for communicating with investors, but not if the access is restricted or if investors don’t know that’s where they need to turn to get the latest news.”

This ruling stems from an SEC investigation into the Facebook activities of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings. Back in December of 2012, Hastings ran afoul of the SEC when he made a post on Facebook announcing that the company had topped 1 billion hours of streaming per month.

The SEC claimed the post violated Regulation FD, as the disclosure didn’t appear in an official filing or a press release. Hastings had not disclosed to investors that he would be using his Facebook page to report important information.

Just a couple of months ago, Hastings made it clear that he wouldn’t be backing down on this, as he felt that he did nothing wrong.

“I wasn’t setting out to set an example. I was sharing something to these 200,000 people,” Hastings said. “I’m not going to back down and say it’s inappropriate. I think it’s perfectly fine. Sometimes you’re just the example that triggers the debate.”

In clarifying these rules the SEC has also cleared Hastings, saying that they recognize that there had been market uncertainly about Regulation FD and social media. Thus the need for the clarifications.

“The report of investigation explains that although every case must be evaluated on its own facts, disclosure of material, nonpublic information on the personal social media site of an individual corporate officer — without advance notice to investors that the site may be used for this purpose — is unlikely to qualify as an acceptable method of disclosure under the securities laws. Personal social media sites of individuals employed by a public company would not ordinarily be assumed to be channels through which the company would disclose material corporate information.”

So, Reed Hastings and others like him can avoid all the hoopla if they simply make it clear to investors that their Facebook or Twitter profiles will be used for divulging key information. As long as that fact is known, companies, CEOs, COOs, or whoever have the right to post investor relations materials on social sites.

In a meeting with investors, eBay announced that it plans to continue growing through 2015 thanks to a “commerce revolution.” This revolution will be spearheaded by the transition to mobile as more and more people take to the Web to buy and sell.

“Led by mobile, a commerce revolution is under way,” said eBay Inc. President and CEO John Donahoe. “Technology is creating a new web-enabled retail interface, a new seamless, multiscreen commerce experience that connects consumers anytime, anywhere. This will expand shopping beyond conventional store environments and e-commerce sites. How we shop is being transformed, and eBay Inc. intends to be a leader in this new commerce world.”

This outlook is not only good for investors, but for the millions of people who sell on eBay. In fact, the company thinks it will enable $300 billion of global commerce in 2015, compared to $175 billion in 2012. It also hopes to grow its revenue from by over 50 percent to $21.5 billion in 2015.

So, how is eBay going to do this? The company has a three pronged approach:

As for other eBay properties, the company expects its Marketplaces business to reach revenues of $11.5 billion in 2015, or a 14 percent compound annual growth rate. PayPal is also expected to reach revenue growth of $10.5 billion, or a 22 percent compound annual growth rate.

Critical aspects he covers include developing an elevator speech (a concise overview of the problem and your solution), a thirty minute product/service overview, and a one hour pitch, typically reserved for investors.

He directly addresses the components of these pitches, and what ingredients to include in them. Dodge also talks about body language and checking for consensus/understanding during a pitch. He helps us comprehend the purpose for refining these speeches and how to assess whether you’re addressing the right people.

If you’re a member of a startup of just someone seeking funding for a new project, Dodge gives valuable advice that may just land you the investors you’ve been searching for. It’s a short video, only about five minutes long. It’s worth reviewing, even if you believe you’re already prepared.

Take a look:

The bill, which was signed into law in April, has also been called the “Crowdfunding Bill” for its promise to allow startup companies to publicly raise money from anyone willing to back them. Fundable, in turn, provides a certified platform for businesses to seek support from anyone in the world in exchange for rewards and equity.

“Fundable provides the entire spectrum,” Wil Schroter, Fundable’s CEO and Co-founder tells us. “We provide everything from affinity and rewards as Kickstarter does, but, more importantly, we go into the more business-focused transactions such as equity and debt.”

As Schroter went on to explain, the Kickstarter model is effective for creative projects, but Fundable is trying to create a model for more serious startups who are trying to reach business goals. In other words, Fundable wants to create an access point that gives startups more options then they have had in the past.

“With Kickstarter, it’s all donations or rewards-based,” he said, “which means it’s either, here’s some money for an idea that I think is great and let us know how it goes; or maybe, here’s some money, and in exchange, you’ll allow me to get some version of the product – like a pre-sale.”

“That’s great for most projects,” he continued, “but when you get into startup company funding, you need a lot more options.”

The model of crowdfunding that Fundable adopts creates new opportunities for both businesses and investors. It not only allows businesses to receive funding from anyone in the world, but it also gives all investors the power to easily support something they believe in.

According to Schroter, there is an “extraordinary” need for startup funding. He believes that with more access to capital, the U.S. could as much as double the number of businesses that start each year.

“This access to capital will not only give more people the opportunity to start businesses,” said Schroter, “[but] it’ll inspire more people to say, ‘Hey, you know what? I had an idea I would’ve never thought of trying to make it a go as a business before, but now I will because I can raise $10,000 to get started.’”

“We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface for how big of an opportunity there is,” he added.

Just after the JOBS Act was passed, we spoke with Michael McGeary from venture capital firm Hattery Labs who told us that crowdfunding models would enhance traditional forms of funding. “Crowdfunding is not going to utterly change that system,” he said. “All it’s gonna do is make it better for more people to get more ideas to the marketplace faster.”

Schroter agrees with McGeary saying that crowdfunding will have a “huge positive impact” on traditional funding methods. As he explained, traditional methods currently make the riskiest investments, but with crowdfunding, that money can be preserved and used toward actual companies that are growing and not just on ideas.

“I think we’re going to fundamentally change how capital gets used,” he said, “and I think it’s great for everyone.”

Already, Elevation Training Mask 2.0 used Fundable and raised its goal within 72 hours. Schroter told us that Fundable talked with thousands of startups that needed to raise capital but settled on 5 specific ones to launch with. The selected companies include Bikedabs, Purge, Stamp TEG, Tackk, and uFlavor, all of which range from product to technology companies.

It chose a small number and wide range of startups in order to allow adequate time to focus on each one of them. For the most part, the initiative is fair game to anyone with a business idea, but Schroter did say that there would be some limitations related to reasonable goals and timeliness going forward.

Although the JOBS Act was signed into law, it is not fully enacted. The SEC is currently conducting its review of the new rules and could potentially change them. Fundable is hopeful it can execute its goal of equity investments, but in the meantime, it is operating on a rewards/donations model and working only with accredited investors.

Berger & Montague, P.C., a law firm specializing in class action suits, alleges that Facebook, Morgan Stanley & Co. (the lead underwriter for Facebook’s IPO), J.P Morgan, and Goldman Sachs all failed to provide accurate information about Facebook’s decline in earnings growth to all Facebook investors prior to Friday’s IPO. According to a statement from Berger & Montague, while Facebook luminaries were out and about on the road show leading up to the IPO, the company guided the underwriters to materially lower their earnings forecast for 2012, leading each of the underwriters to reduce Facebook’s earnings estimates for the second quarter and full fiscal year 2012.

Individual executives from Facebook were singled out in the suit, as indicated by the case’s extraordinarily long name:

Goldrich Cousins P.C. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L. Andreesen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co.

This lawsuit joins two (at least) other legal claims that have been filed against Facebook and its underwriters since the underwhelming and financially disastrous IPO. Three investors filed a lawsuit against Facebook for similar reasons in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, citing that the underwriters only shared the information of Facebook’s decreased earnings growth to a select few investors while leaving out others.

As if the pile-on wasn’t high enough, a second law firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dow, also filed a class action law suit against Facebook yesterday for yet again the same reason: Facebook mislead investors by failing to disclose the fact that its revenue growth was slowing. Darren Robbins, a partner in the firm, told the Los Angeles Times that the fallout of Facebook’s IPO is “deeply troubling.”

“The notion that the lead underwriters would contemporaneous with a road show and a filing of the registration statement receive information and thereafter materially reduce revenue projections for the very period the IPO occurred is nothing less than shocking,” Robbins said.

“You’re telling one group of folks and giving them access to one thing while people are putting up more than $15 billion worth of cash,” he said. “There’s a reason why you have multiple investigations.”

When asked for a comment about the lawsuits, a Facebook spokesman indicated that the company intends to stand its ground. “We believe the lawsuit is without merit and will defend ourselves vigorously,” he told WebProNews.

I’d wager a bet – or is that too soon, since we’re talking about Facebook? – that Facebook is really super happy that it hired a law firm that specializes in class action defense all the way back in March.

(This article has been updated from its original copy. It’s been edited to add the comment from Facebook’s spokesperson.)

According to the the SEC, McGee learned about an acquisition through a conversation with an Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor and friend who confessed to great stress and workload related to the acquisition. In turn, McGee and his colleague at Ameriprise, Michael W. Zirinsky, bought up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock in the insurance company for both themselves and family members. They also shared the tip with colleagues in Hong Kong.

Stock rose over 64% for the investors and the group made well over a million dollars in returns.

Elaine C. Greenberg, Associate Director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office comments on the trading:

“McGee stole information shared with him in the utmost confidence, and as securities industry professionals he and Zirinsky clearly knew better,”

“As this case demonstrates, we will follow each link in a tipping chain all the way to Hong Kong if necessary.”

An insider trading case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against McGee, Michael Zirinsky, Robert Zirinsky, and their Hong Kong affiliates Paulo Lam and Marianna sze wan Ho.

No word yet on how the cases have progressed, but it sounds like the SEC is taking this one seriously. I wonder what this guy from Alcoholic Anonymous thinks of his friend now. Didn’t he wonder how McGee got so rich, so fast? Interesting.

The loans include a $5 billion revolving line of credit and a $3 billion 364-day bridge loan. This credit line will replace the companies current $2.5 billion revolving credit line used for general business purposes. The $3 billion bridge loan will be used to cover taxes for Facebook employees’ restricted stock units. Financiers include heavy hitters, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Barclays PLC.

As part of the deal, Facebook added 25 new underwriters (bringing the total to 31) to its updated IPO filing, including Citigroup Global Markets Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC and Wells Fargo Securities LLC. (Underwriters buy the IPO securities from the company and resell them to the public.)

According to the updated filing, the $5 billion line of credit will be used for working capital and general purposes. It may also help with potential litigation costs. So far Yahoo has asked Facebook to license technology they believe to be covered under their intelectual property, threatening suit if the matter is unresolved.

Yahoo may not be the only ones to have legal issues with Facebook. According to their SEC filing, “We presently are involved in a number of lawsuits, and as we face increasing competition and gain an increasingly high profile, including in connection with our initial public offering, we expect the number of patent and other intellectual property claims against us to grow.”

Facebook made about $3.71 Billion last year, mostly in advertising. The company is marketing to an estimated 845 million monthly active users.

Investors are still strong on Facebook, estimating the value at around $100 million. Facebook hopes to raise $5 Billion in sales of its IPO shares, potentially making this the largest internet IPO to date.