Another Class action filed 9/9/96 in NH # c 96496-B. Emailed C. Lutts
the following just a few moments ago. Never heard back the first time, what are the odds this time?
Subject: Presstek/Cabot
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:02:53 -0400
From: planetra@mgl.ca
To: office@cabot.com
To: Carlton Lutts
From: Pierre Panet-Raymond
Date: Sept. 13, 1996
Well it has been two weeks since I communicated with you and I have
heard nothing in reply. Funny, all the bulls on the Silicon Investor
thread have gone quite as well. We are now through week 14 of under
performing RP. You sure are bending your principles for this one.
I thought that you would be interested in this list of changes clipped
from the SEC filings of 9/9/96.
10-K/A 9-6-96
Changes from previous filing.
1. By the end of 1995 the Company had shipped 211 of its PEARL Imaging
Kits, 115 of which were for the new Heidelberg Quickmaster DI introduced in May 1995. (P.10)
2 These arrangements were made as a result of a schedule change
requested by Heidelberg in November 1995 to reduce the number of PEARL
imaging systems being manufactured by the Company each month for
Heidelberg from the amount then being produced. (P.13)
3. Substantially all of the backlog of products under contract is
expected be shipped by the Company in 1996. (P.19)
S-3/A
4. Pursuant to the Heidelberg Agreements, the Company has granted
Heidelberg, through January 1997, the exclusive right, for use of the
Direct Imaging technology in the Quickmaster DI. (P.7)
5. In the proceeding Agfa has charged the Company with breaches of the
Manufacturing Agreement, good faith and fair dealing and is seeking
damages in an amount alleged to be $2,000,000 as well as joint
ownership of several patents relating to the Company's printing plate
technology. (P.10)
6.The Company has also been advised that an anonymous party has
requested review by the U.S. Patent Office of an additional patent
relating to the Company's PEARL technology. (P.11)
Some of these are pretty gut wrenching. Point # 3 states that Presstek has no order backlog for shipments in 1997! This probably has something to do with the whopping inventory of Diode Kits Heidelberg has on hand which occasioned the November 1995 amendments (see #'s 2 and 4 above).
What do you think of the ". real facts issued by Presstek in its press
releases ." now ( your words in market letter # 833)? On June 21
Presstek stated that . " none of our patents are in dispute" yet above
in point 5, you will note that Agfa is claiming joint ownership of
several patents. Clearly they were wrong when they stated there were no disputes on June 21st. How much comfort do you take from the following statement from the company? "Although the Company believes that an unfavorable outcome of the arbitration is unlikely, there can be no assurance of the outcome of the proceeding."
You better hope they are better at predicting the outcome of the
arbitration proceeding than they were in their July 26th press release
when they stated ".Presstek has also learned that the decision process
as to whether to grant the anonymous party's request typically takes two to three months." Given that the S-3/A was signed on September 3rd, the two to three months was way off.
All of your subscribers on Silicon Investor and Motley are disappointed that you have not replied to my challenge to you to debate the facts on Presstek. I truly look forward to hearing from you.
--
MZ_ |
