Moriarty,
I'm going to call the 800 number that's on the newletter and find out
what's up with the website being down for such a long time.
Those warrrants have turned out to be a real joke, haven't they?
Interestingly enough DMD209SV posted again on 7/8, so I copied the
latest posts from AOL for your reading enjoyment. However, I found this
statement from the DMD209SV to be a real downer : "My fiance was employed
with Work until earlier this year, but he saw no changes indicating that
Work was improving, so he found other employment. In his estimation,
the company is very top heavy (management wise), and sales were nil. No sales, no revenue."
********************************************************************
Subj: Re:Memory Lane (cont)
Date: 97-07-08 15:06:38 EDT
From: SRESERCH
DMD209SV, From your position in the Company were you able to determine what
percentage of the Business was legitimate and what percentage was FRAUDULENT.
If we look back over the past several years, we have seen Revenues plunge
from around $ 20 Million in 1994 to almost ZERO over the past several
Quarters. Thus, it would appear that the Company's Revenues were generated
on less than credible contracts over the period in question as addressed by
the Class Action Shareholders' Lawsuit. Would that be a correct
assumption?
Subj: Re: Memory Lane (cont)
Date: 97-07-08 21:44:10 EDT
From: DMD209SV
I'm not familiar with the specifics re: the shareholder's suit, and as I said
before, I was more or less a "flunky" (though it still bothers me to think of
myself like that). I was given several different reasons for the existence
of the company I worked for. However, I do know that several of the
companies the SEC was investigating were in fact "dummy" companies. There
were more companies than CEO's to go around. Also, questionable activities
were involved with siblings not employed by Work, i.e. subcontracted work so
that medical benefits were available. (Incidentally, some of the
subcontracted work paid for was never performed.) I personally do not
believe that Carat or Al-Sabah were legitimate companies, regardless of the
court's findings in the lawsuits filed for breach of contract. Logically, if
the company I worked for had enough inventory to build 61 ERGOS, why wouldn't
the contract be fulfilled? I still don't understand the reasoning behind a
"cash settlement" instead. And I do recall the 10Q filed for the fiscal year
this all happened in noted a $50M loss, after the books were "uncooked". I'm
afraid I'm not too familiar with stocks and the transactions involved, nor
with comprehensive financial statements. My fiance was employed with Work
until earlier this year, but he saw no changes indicating that Work was
improving, so he found other employment. In his estimation, the company is
very top heavy (management wise), and sales were nil. No sales, no revenue.
Based on what I understand your post to say, I'd say it's a logical
assumption that a large percentage of the business was fraudulent.
*********************************************************************
Lee |
