Things that make you go hmmmm….

I noticed in a recent amicus brief filed by both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and by Public Knowlege the two organizations described themselves and ended the description with these two lines I quote in juxtaposition:

“EFF has no parent companies, subsidiaries or affiliates. No publicly held corporation has an ownership stake of 10% or more in EFF.”

“Public Knowlege has no parent companies, subsidiaries or affiliates. No publicly held corporation has an ownership stake in Public Knowledge.”

Hmmm….”No publicly held corporation has an ownership stake of 10% or more in EFF.”

Isn’t that fascinating.

So which publicly held corporation has an ownership stake of less than 10% in EFF?

Oh, gee whiz. Who would hazard a guess on that one.

2 thoughts on “Things that make you go hmmmm….

  1. There’s no mystery here: for purposes of the rule governing corporate disclosure statements in appellate briefs, those two statements are equivalent. Besides, nonprofits like EFF can’t be owned by publicly-traded corporations in the first place. The rule is reproduced below.Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1: Corporate Disclosure Statement(a) Who Must File. Any nongovernmental corporate party to a proceeding in a court of appeals must file a statement identifying any parent corporation and any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation.(b) Time for Filing. A party must file the Rule 26.1(a) statement with the principal brief or upon filing a motion, response, petition, or answer in the court of appeals, whichever occurs first, unless a local rule requires earlier filing. Even if the statement has already been filed, the party’s principal brief must include the statement before the table of contents. A party must supplement its statement whenever the information that must be disclosed under Rule 26.1(a) changes.(c) Number of Copies. If a statement is filed before the principal brief, the party must file an original and 3 copies unless the court requires a different number by local rule or by order in a particular case.

    Like

  2. Thanks for tracking that rule down, but I guess I wasn’t quite clear about what I was focused on: The fact that one organization chose one form of description and the others chose another (all in the same brief) raised a question in my mind as to what the motivation was. Could be explained simply as slop. Could be a real difference.The mystery (as always) is who are the major contributors to EFF. Transparency begins at home, yes?And I don’t think that’s quite right re public companies owning shares in nonprofits. I believe the rule is that the nonprofit cannot distribute a dividend to its stockholders, but that a nonprofit can assign shares of stock to anyone (including board members) to give them voting rights.So…transparency begins at home especially for those living in glass houses, yes?

    Like

Comments are closed.