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 : Thermo Tech Technologies (TTRIF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom G who wrote (5730)	8/11/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: CAYMAN	Respond to of 6467

BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION (BCSC) BY: ReformIsAlive YAHOO Post #1870 Cayman Writing to the (BCSC) will have another positive effect, that being to let them know that the Thermo Tech issue is being watched and that there are people who have suffered damages at the hands of the present management. If the British Columbia government is making an effort the least we can do is to acknowledge our support. Kim odcom@earthlink.net Posted: 08/11/1999 09:56 am EDT as a reply to: Msg 1841 by cayman_98

To: Tom G who wrote (5730)	8/11/1999 7:39:00 PM
From: CAYMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6467

Ted Belman, As Usual You Are Plain Wrong! BY: ReformIsAlive YAHOO Post #1871 The ban is helping the shareholders. It has stopped the dilution. As far as any future deal, a halt to trading in British Columbia is immaterial. You are supposed to be a lawyer, any L1 could draft an instrument specifying the conditions under which any proposed deal would occur. Further, any deal which would require additional dilution we do not want. If René J. Branconnier and the Board Of Directors were to resign, the order would be lifted. It is RB who is hurting the company and that is, and has been, the status quo for Thermo Tech. Recognizing trading has been halted in British Columbia, the only interest anybody would have in seeing it lifted, and dilution continued, is if they wanted TT to issue shares for another reason (Maybe a private placement for a floorless convertible issue). The connection between lifting the ban and any future deal is a subterfuge employed to justify lifting the ban for selfish purposes. Kim odcom@earthlink.net Posted: 08/11/1999 10:36 am EDT as a reply to: MSG 1854 by teederr ******************************************************************** Correction by: teederr YAHOO Post #1854 As a result of your post I called the BCSC. You are right to a limited extent. I had a very long conversation with a senior person there. It seems that they wanted the Ambrose deal to be better spelt out and full disclosure made of the full deal The company has been supplying them with the requested info and at last count there were still some questions to be answered. The dialoge is ongoing and he couldn't say whether the order will be lifted in one week or one month. They want the company to make an announcement of all the details once fully disclosed to them. That's the sum total of it as far as I have been led to believe. I told him that the cease trading order is potentialy more damaging to the shareholders then the absence of the full details are. In other words, it is hurting the shareholders rather then helping them. After all this deal is a year old. I suggested to him that it has the potential to abort or drastically change a major deal that is presently being rumored and that this deal is expected to be very beneficial to the shareholders. He said that such things are taken into account when deciding to lift cease trading orders. I fail to see how the bashers can justify their attempts to scuttle Rene knowing full well that they are placing the shareholders in great jeopardy by attempting to prevent the company from arranging financing. It seems that they are trying to prevent the company and Rene from succeeding. This is the only way that they can be proved right. If they have an axe to grind with Rene, sue him but don't do things that prevent the company from raising financing. Shareholders should be writing to the BCSC to lift the ban rather than to keep it on. Even if the bashers can give a reason for why their actions are in the best interests of the shareholders, such the removal of Rene, the chances that they will in fact help the shareholders are far out weighed by the probability of hurting them. Posted: 08/10/1999 05:00 pm EDT as a reply to: Msg 1839 by pvan11 ******************************************************************** The Real Deal by: teederr Yahoo Post #1827 I Believe: 1. That the fire was caused by a faulty motor that was covered in the foam. I also beleive that the fire marshal and the adjuster are of this view. 2. That the BCSC ban will be lifted this week and that they just required a more detailed disclosure on the Ambrose deal and that there was absolutely no investigation of fraud and pilfering. 3. The big deal that everyone is talking about is still on track to be announced at the end of the month. 4. Part of the insurance money will soon be advanced to do the cleanup of the site. The rest will follow in due course.