To: STK1 who wrote (742 ) 6/20/1999 10:23:00 AM From: Noneyet Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 2891
Charles, of course the Magruder ""TERMINATION" should not have a material "detrimental effect of FCM". Why should it, his position was only CEO, President of fnet. Copied from the SEC filing 10Q 4/29/99 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On April 5, 1999, the Company's subsidiary FNet Corp. ("FNet") filed a lawsuit to rescind an employment contract and to seek damages from a former terminated employee. The employee subsequently filed a claim with the Texas Work Force Commission, requesting full compensation under the employment contract. FNet plans to vigorously contest the action. There can be no assurance that FNet will be successful in its lawsuit, or defense of the action brought by the former employee. An adverse outcome would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< In fact Charles, Mr. Magruder's termination was so meaningless that Fnet decided to file a suit ( Injunctive relief ), and claim in that suit ( to the Ventura Court ), the exact opposite of what the SEC documents state. That he quit. That clearly shows his departure was not detrimental. By the way, a presentation by Mr. Magruder of the SEC filing of Franklin's should put an immediate end to the injunctive relief. If, of course, the SEC filing is referencing James Magruder. The funny part is, in this press release of April 16, 1999, Franklin Telecom makes the following statement !!!! >>>>>>>>James Magruder has left to pursue other interests<<<<<<<<<<<ftel.com Charles, also review this post of mine for other insignificant events.exchange2000.com