Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (12533)	6/30/1999 10:43:00 AM
From: William Epstein	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Rich Wolf; Thank you for the information. I see now that part of the statement was not up-to-date. Your comments about their financing problem reflect my thoughts too. However, I wouldn't be too comfortable until CC has exercised its option at the end of July. They are known for short selling and they have a perfect vehicle for the purpose in the debentures they purchased. I suspect that is one reason why they took the deal. It the price goes against them they just deliver the shares. If the price goes their way they can choose to exercise of not depending upon what shorts they may be holding and at what price. They are covered in both directions. I am sure this point has already been made many times on this BB.

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (12533)	6/30/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

"The SEC disclaimers are overly cautious and misleading, and do not represent the current status. " This is blatantly false and egregiously illogical. First, disclaimers are not "misleading," disclaimers are legal boilerplate. Second, disclosures are neither misleading nor "overly" cautious in the VLNC filings. Disclosures are fact statements. If disclosures were misleading, VLNC would be vulnerable to litigation. VLNC's attorneys are charged with the responsibility to ensure that the disclosures do not mislead and are as patently clear as possible. To counsel or represent, expressly or impliedly, to others on a public forum that the filings are unrepresentative of current status - when the filings specifically and expressly state the opposite - is either the negligent statement of a fool or the purposeful one of a criminal. Which is it with you wolf, fool or criminal? In your case, it could be both.