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: Greg Smith who wrote (12538)	6/30/1999 11:44:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Mr. Smith, do you work for ULBI? Just curious. The issue is what constitutes 'commercial product.' We know that Valence provided samples to customers earlier this spring FROM THOSE SAME PRODUCTION LINES. So why aren't those considered production samples? Good question. Why does the company tell us they've shipped samples, then put in this wording in SEC documents? Ask the lawyers. They don't want Valence to commit to anything in SEC documents that could be used against them in the future, if it takes longer than investors think/hope for events to come to pass. Simply put, they don't want to give anyone something to sue them for. I'd do the same if I were them. I believe they won't call ANYTHING a 'commercial product' until someone has already bought and paid for it. Period. We just have to live with that. We simply cannot predict the timing of events in any case, since as you well know with ULBI, anything can happen.

To: Greg Smith who wrote (12538)	6/30/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: FMK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Greg, Thanks for pointing out this anomaly. "...the Company expects that customers will require an extensive qualification period once the customer receives its first commercial product off a production line. As of June 11, 1999, the Company has not provided any such commercial product to any potential customer, and therefore, has not started any formal product qualification period." It's good to know that in spite of this, they have accepted purchase orders and are producing laptop size batteries for Alliant technology as we post. It appears to be another CYA statement by the attorneys. By making such statements that lead readers of a required SEC document expect nothing, the attorneys have done their job by removing any likelihood that readers could find ammunition for a lawsuit. Its a fact of life. If you look at their development stage filings, you should be able find such statements in SEC documents of thousands of successful companies.

To: Greg Smith who wrote (12538)	6/30/1999 11:51:00 AM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

The document from which I posted excerpts was the 424(b)(2). It was not the 10-K. The language I highlighted expressly from the document speaks for itself and is patently clear regarding effective dates. The status is as of the date of the document and not the FY end date. Your reference to the 10-K does prove the point that the effective date of the reported buisness state of VLNC in the 10-K also is not the FY end date but rather June 1999. That eliminates the hype arguments that VLNC's progess has somehow miraculously accelerated since the end of the FY such that commercial production and the sale of product in material quantities into the marketplace is imminent. It clearly is not based on VLNC management's fact statements (not disclaimers, disclosures) in the filings.