Hi, Howard, hope your blood pressure is better this morning :-) No, I don't see the clarification as a positive thing, nor do I see it as a negative thing. Frankly, I don't see it as a thing at all and didn't understand why it was needed, but I guess that is why I am not a lawyer. The original PR clearly stated this was a MOU:
DGIV and Telecom Egypt have signed a memorandum of understanding to join in installation and marketing of Internet Protocol long distance telephone service commencing between Egypt and the United States ...
It seems to me that the "clarification" only served to define what an MOU is, so I didn't see the need for it. We were all trying to speculate what this eventually means to Digitcom as far as revenues, when it comes to fruition, as far as the number of minutes, the profit margins, earnings per share, etc, but as far as I know it is still ok to discuss these things in a speculative way on an internet board about investments.
My guess is that the reason for the clarification is that many investors were calling the company to ask about these things, and some guesses were made there as well. So the be legally safe -- especially since they are close to putting out an SB10 -- the company felt that putting out this clarification would state clearly that this is still at the MOU stage, and no cost or schedule data can be provided until a contract is signed. Plus there is the safe harbor stuff as well.
I am glad I am not a lawyer. |
