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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChatterjeeP who wrote (46309)	7/12/1999 10:55:00 AM
From: William Brotherson	Respond to of 50264

OK, """"""""OFF TOPIC but Take a Look Anyway"""""""""" A friend of mine asked me to put this up where ever, if you are interested, give it a try!! New things, New ways, might just be fun!! >**** HEY! I am still looking for some computer, internet, marketing assistance on a part time, contract basis!! If you know anyone interested tell them to contact laugh@onramp.net in the subject line mention "Eggheads on tap". It is a neat "think tank" type idea to get off the ground soon. wb

To: ChatterjeeP who wrote (46309)	7/12/1999 11:31:00 AM
From: eric larson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

Do we know that DGIV's "contracts" with its partners do not restrict DGIV's full disclosure of its relationships and performance at this time...i.e. except on condition of permission from its partners? Is such a thing possible, common and/or reasonable? There's been numerous suggestions that "foreign buying" was responsible for the upsurge in volume recently. And someone mentioned that foreigners (even as partners privy to "inside information"?) are not obliged to follow SEC guidelines (especially in context of a currently non-reporting company?). Could it be possible that, for purposes of timely foreign acquisition of DGIV shares cheap, DGIV cannot fully disclose at its own initiative without violation of contractural conditions with its "partners"? Would the SEC "care" at this time that foreign interests could be acquiring currently-nonreporting-DGIV shares on unequal footing with American (and other "in the dark" foreign) potential investors? Might Jimmy Chin possibly be caught in the middle between demands of the SEC and demands of its contracted partners (and demands of his company's shareholders)? How ridiculous is such a notion? If the speculated foreign buyers do now have substantial share positions in DGIV, and assuming DGIV's full disclosure is contingent on its partners' permission, would there be any continuing interest by the vested partners to restrict DGIV's disclosure? What ramifications, if any, might there be for SEC consideration over lifting the suspension of trading in DGIV shares, even should DGIV be fully forthcoming soon (as Roger Templeton emphasized "...they are going to meet all listing requirements soon, definitely much before the November deadline." Message 10428784 )? In other words, might there be any basis for the SEC to continue enforcing trading suspension, even though DGIV discloses in a timely manner and meets "all listing requirements"? (What maximum % ownership can foreigners have at this time? Could this be an issue with the SEC...at this time?)