There is debate on how often companies provide raw earnings ahead of time: https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1186741657351413761

Seems silly for the SEC to allow that. A media embargo isn’t something legally binding...it’s more like a gentleman’s handshake AFAIK

If there’s an accompanying NDA then it is legally binding. Same thing happens with the Fed, EIA, USDA, BLS, etc

I don’t think that’s how media embargos work, meaning no signed NDAs. It’s usually just a journalist telling a company rep a verbal “yes I agree to the embargo”.

Verbal agreements are very much legally binding, especially if it is in writing (e.g. over email).

Not a lawyer, but I thought that one element of a binding contract (at least in the common law Anglosphere) is that the parties must intend to create a legally binding relationship - i.e. if two friends agree to each do a favour for each other, and one of them reneges on their promise, the courts won't hold that it's a contract because in general if you ask a friend to do a favour for you, it's not understood to be a formal legal relationship.

I wonder how that applies to embargoes that don't come with formal NDAs or whatever.

I worked for lawyers that did a lot of contract law. It can vary from state to state (in the U.S.) but the state I worked in a verbal agreement -- not even written down -- is legally binding. Proving a non-written agreement can be hard in court but that is a different issue.

Not disagreeing - I didn't say a verbal agreement isn't binding.

What I'm saying is that a verbal agreement is binding if there's an intention to create binding relations, and not binding if there is not that intention.

There is a relationship formed though, 'we will provide you this information early on the condition that you release not before a date and time we specify.' They both get something valuable from each other, the outlet access to write a better article and to publish sooner when it will get more traffic and the company gets their earning in front of more people.

Did you seriously write this?

This doesn't contribute to conversation at all and seems to be implying something that's incorrect. Verbal agreement (e.g. even telling someone out loud "I agree to do this for you for $10") is a form of legal contract. Enforceability/provability is a different story but legally that's a contract.

> seems to be implying something that's incorrect

I think they were referring to the contradiction of "verbal agreement... especially if it's in writing." But yeah, the snarky comment does not help anybody with anything.

An agreement in writing is usually a verbal agreement, so it's not even wrong. Perhaps someone meant to contrast an oral agreement with a written one.

> An agreement in writing is usually a verbal agreement

A verbal agreement inherently means there's no written agreement. Also, oral = verbal.

That's incorrect. Legally, verbal primarily means using words. The technical difference is whether an agreement is written or spoken/oral.

FYI = Agreements are either written or oral (spoken).

Verbal just means using words.

A verbal agreement in law is almost always a spoken one.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/the-law-of-verbal-agree...

That site can't even render HTML properly, and verbal means using words. That's the primary definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/verbal

Of course agreements are using words. How they express those words (orally or written) is the difference. Here's are better answers from actual lawyers: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-oral-an... and https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-difference-between-an-ora...

> That site can't even render HTML properly, and verbal means using words. That's the primary definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/verbal

There exists separate legal dictionaries precisely because words take on new meanings in a legal context. Searching "verbal agreement" brings up numerous legal blogs and sites discussing what you are calling "oral agreements". They are likely interchangeable in a legal context.

"Companies can use social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to announce key information" but Investors must be alerted[1].

TechCrunch may not qualify under this.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-2013-51htm

It applies to websites too:

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. The SEC issued guidance in 2008 clarifying that websites can serve as an effective means for disseminating information to investors if they’ve been made aware that’s where to look for it.

(in the same document)

Isn't that referring to publishing earnings on the company's own website or social media they control, not on independent publishers like TechCrunch?

It could be TechCrunch but investors would have to have known in advance that's where the numbers will be published.

Why wouldn't it be legal?

Why wouldn’t it be legal?

Why is it legal for your accountants to know the numbers, before they go public?

Consider the journalists publishing the information as an extension of the accounting department. Specifically, they are the part of the extended department that announces the numbers.

And yes, the SEC loves to prosecute people for suspiciously shorting stocks, right before earnings release.

>>Consider the journalists publishing the information as an extension of the accounting department.

Well, they are not. And accountants can face penalties from lawsuits, losing their license, to jail for revealing client info, unless directed to.

Journalists trading on insider information can go to jail just as easily as accountants.