SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jeffbas who wrote (16653)3/19/2003 5:51:35 PM
From: Sergio H  Read Replies (1) of 78611
 
Jeff and Paul, the lack of insider buying and the financing on ALU remains just as whacky as it was from the IPO. Additionally, the insurance claim is the second time the company has filed a claim for fire damage. The first fire is still an open arson investigation as is the second.

But, in looking for a what can go wrong here, I can't find it. The insurance claim must be paid according to the policy, even if arson by a company insider is discovered. The only difference in the payoff would be that without company wrongdoing the payoff would be at sale price for the lost product as opposed to payoff at company cost if ALU is guilty of foul play.

ALU has stated in press releases as well as in their recent CC that they will file a law suit for loss of business due to the lack of payoff from the insurance co. but no suit has been filed. One could surmise that a settlement is near. If no settlement is imminent, then your caution is on the money.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News