7/19/09 pm Intelllivest Securities Research Confirms Policy of Not Selling Research Coverage in Response to NY Times Article

Post #9 The following press release was issued by Intellivest Securities Research, Inc. on July 19, at 7:00 pm.

For Immediate Release July 19, 2009
Contact: Intellivest Securities Research, Inc.
Daniel H. Kolber, 678-595-9746, dkolber@intellivestsecurities.com

INTELLIVEST SECURITIES RESEARCH, INC. CONFIRMS ITS POLICY OF NOT ACCEPTING PAYMENTS FROM COMPANIES IT COVERS IN RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

ATLANTA, June 25/PRNewsire/-- Intellivest Securities Research, Inc. ("ISR"), a Georgia registered investment advisor and publisher of research reports distributed as third party research through its affiliate, Intellivest Securities, Inc., announced today that in response to a New York Times article published on July 19, 2009 it is confirming to the public that it has not, and does not intend to, accept payments from the companies it analyzes in its research reports.

The New York Times article, "A Matter of Opinion" subtitled "Free-Speech Defender Wades Into the Credit Mess" by David Segal was published in The New York Times Sunday Business Section, page 1. The article, in ISR's opinion, for the first time in a prestigious, mass media print publication confirms that for first amendment purposes unpaid securities research reports are entitled to the same protection as noncommercial speech and quotes a noted legal scholar in support of this proposition. The article described pending litigation against publishers of financial opinions such as rating agencies. The article focused on the agencies' attorney, Floyd Abrams, describing him in the article's first sentence as "the most famous First Amendment lawyer in the country." The article states that Mr. Abrams' legal position in court will be that the credit agencies' ratings deserve the same free-speech protections afforded to journalists because a bond rating is like an editorial - an opinion based on the educated guess about the future.

Because this is such an unclear and emerging area of the law, the article states, "Legal scholars give this argument marks that range from "certainly plausible" to "you're kidding, right?"

The article says Prof. John C. Coffee of Columbia law doesn't think Abrams’ is "a good legal argument" quoting the Professor as saying that the distinction between a financial opinion and an editorial is that the editorial page isn't paid for by a sponsor. ISR’s opinion is that the article makes it clear that the jury is still out on whether paid research coverage is entitled to full first amendment protection but there is no debate that unpaid research coverage has full first amendment protection.

Intellivest Securities Research, Inc. started publishing research reports in 2008 and its most recent report was a "Buy" on Boeing (NYSE: BA) issued on June 25, 2009 taking a contrarian view because in its opinion Boeing CEO W. James McNerney, Jr. made an intelligent decision regarding safety issues facing its latest project.

Daniel Kolber, ISR CEO, publishes a daily blog at www.intellivestsecurities.com, The Dow Jones 30 Monitor, that digests references to the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average found in the print editions of the leading daily financial and general newspapers, including the New York Times, and also monitors non-daily print periodicals and the SEC website for Dow 30 corporate filings. Kolber discussed the Segal article in his Sunday morning blog and realized that a confirmed public policy of not charging for research reports in order to get full first amendment rights is an intelligent choice in light of the lesser status provided to paid coverage classified as commercial speech.

Kolber, an attorney and author of a monthly Atlanta Business Chronicle column, “Legal Strategies,” said the Segal article is significant because since there are not yet any judicial decisions on this issue, commentaries and articles such as his describe the state of the law as a sort of common law until legislation or court decisions revise it. Since 1857 The New York Times has played a leading role in issues dealing with the first amendment. Every law student knows the 1964 and 1971 Supreme Court decisions of New York Times v Sullivan providing the press leeway in discussing public figures and NY Times vs. US, the pentagon papers case. Kolber said, "I want our research to be seen as truly independent and confirming our policy will help us achieve that goal."