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 : Liteglow (LTGL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Lyddon who wrote (4622)	8/21/1999 12:10:00 PM
From: Mr. Jens Tingleff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4715

Thanks Joe, Then it is just like here - Here it is very important to book according to actual dates of event, as otherwise it would be a hard job to run check on our sales tax (VAT) which, depending on normal size of amount, are due monthly, qtr or every half year. LTGLThe damaged goods returned was in the second half of the year - So the discrepancy is still 200K in the first half or a lot was returned in month 5 and 6 - Quite a few $ The discrepancy is on the net earning - equals 6-800K sales. And how could the revenue in month 5 and 6 then show at all when that amount in credit-notes?. If a large part was going down lawyers pockets in the mentioned but unknown Russo case, and as said in RB#613 LTGL actually won the case, then what did they win ?? - IMO such a case, even though ended, should be in the filing as well, as it is happening during the years covered in the 10SB. The case defending against Michael Angelo (amazing name :-) ) is not ended according to the filing. That may have caused costs in 98 - But that is not what SK referred to in RB#613. Looking at Russo Securities, they have a history at the SEC - I posted some links to such in RB - So I would not be surprised if there has indeed been a case - Just want to know what is was about, and why winning it can end up in a loss. Kr Jens