To: Jon C who wrote (1773 ) 7/5/1999 11:19:00 AM From: Jacalyn Deaner Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3519
Manning also said that XSNI was listed on the wrong exchange - when in the Feb 1999 statement to you guys over there - it is indicated that the only way manning could consumate the xstream Canada deal was to be listed on the OTCBB by November 1, 1998 - and manning just made that date; manning also said Lehmans was working on the IPO for XSNI and you know what Lehmans says about that; manning also said that there wer only 34 million shares out - and you know there are 50 million listed with the Transfer Agent; manning also said there were 20 million warrants - and I am finding out that may be WRONG too. Unless there can be someone that can back up what manning says, his word is mud. That is exactly why Lucent is giving me ALL the details and specifics and I shall post them when received. If Lucent did provide the financing - what was the collateral, could it have been the "good name" value of xstream UK. I am forwarding your post to Lucent since you quote Manning himself - the contract is completed - then the service should be operating with a whole lot more efficiency and speed with the few hundred thousand "accounts" of which half may be active. If lucent provided the financing, what are the terms of the payback; where are the revenues going to be generated to pay this debt off; OR is Lucent a majority owner of xstream UK the free ISP which is XSNI? When I get this answer from Lucent, I'll post it. They may have signed a deal - but is it consumated - ie: has it been only signed and not executed? And now, the terms of the loan/financing have to be disclosed. Thanks for your post, your posts provide no actual day to day productivity of xstream UK the free ISP; but you do offer up little bits of information with each post, particularly the one about the transfer agent, and now this lucent clarification from manning - which has to be verified, consider me "on it" :) Jacalyn