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 : PINC - Planet City -- Software and Services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (1530)	8/13/1999 11:54:00 PM
From: Hogger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1754

TideGlider, you're placing too much emphasis on the role Greg may or may not have played. I have little doubt that he indeed was at least a catalyst in this chain reaction, but this is all too reminiscient of happenings in WDC under Clinton (and most other presidents, as well). If there is to be a lynching, and the lynchee is Greg, I have no doubt whatsoever that he is the scapegoat. People in his position are in no position to pass out 300K parcels of restricted stock. Subway got 150K shares of free trading stock and they have admitted that it came through a third party to them. The third party received an amount equal to twice that which they received. I have spoken to both brokerage and legal level folks about this, and it is indeed probably a legal manner of doing this type of hype job - uh, pardon me .. of increasing the market cap of a company by increasing the value of their shares. The Prexy at subway has stated that he has only sold 6K (I think that is correct) so it wouldn't have been him. It would indeed be reassuring to have Terry or someone else address this, and also provide us with financials (even if still evolving) and something more solid than a mass advertising campaign. As for the veracity of the use of a THIRD PARTY to buy a PINC pump, it is beyond doubt. I have personally seen e-mail between a friend and the President of subway. PINC did indeed pay for the promotion by going through a THIRD PARTY. Like so many other, I'd like to know if that THIRD PARTY is another FBN'er. Hogger - Adm(Hon)

To: TideGlider who wrote (1530)	8/14/1999 12:06:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 1754

Re: The Legality of Shares for Advertising As we know, the SEC has enacted legislation to curb S-8 abuse, i.e. the practice of paying shares of stock to people who essentially are being compensated for hyping the company (see: #reply-9784730). However, according to information passed on to me by someone who contacted a securities lawyer, this only applies to reporting companies since only reporting companies can do an S-8 registration in the first place. PINC is not a reporting company! So, even had PINC directly paid thesubway.com, it would not technically have been illegal. Sleazy, yes IMO, but not illegal. What if PINC had been a reporting company? Well, recall that the shares were given by a shareholder, not an "insider (i.e. officer, director, or employee). So, I suppose, that is probably legal. As for the shareholder, if PINC sold them cheap shares, PINC would need to file an S-8 at the time that transaction took place. On a slightly related note, I found this disclaimer by Market-Pulse quite crafty: Ronald S. Laura Enterprises, Inc. paid $4,250.00 to MSI. Ronald S. Laura Enterprises, Inc. will allow MSI to purchase 425,000 shares of Ronald S. Laura Enterprises, Inc.'s common stock at a discount price of $0.01 per share. market-pulse.com I can just imagine how this idea might be abused: company writes a check for $X to Mr. Tout. Mr. Tout then endorses the check and hands it back to the company for Y shares of stock for next to nothing. Technically, money has changed hands-- but only on paper! The end result, of course, is stock for services! - Jeff