Flok

Thanks to d11j0d and Joey. Joey, helpful commentary as always. Joey, you raise an interesting point in focusing on Kim’s specific role. As I think about it, the quesiton describes him as a Research Analyst, which suggests to me that he is an equity research analyst issuing reports for the investor community (is this too specific an interpretation of “Research Analyst”?), and that the issuer is approaching him simply because he may be their only point of contact into Batts Bros. This would mean that he would simply be acting as an intermediary or a point of introduction to the Corporate Finance department. Of course, that would suggest that once he knows Batts is advising on an offering for the issuer, that presumably brings him “over the Chinese wall” and thus immediately makes him unable to write further reports until postissuance.
Anyway, I suppose the bottom line is that it does not quite put him in so obviously conflicted a position that even his prior written disclosure to his employer is insufficient.
Two broader questions:
1. Is there any conceivable scenario where prior written disclosure to the employer is insufficient protection for the individual, i.e. where the conflict is so egregious and blatant that prior written disclosure to the employer is insufficient?
2. Does the prior disclosure in fact have to be written?