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 : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MGV who wrote (13989)	8/26/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: golden_tee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<VLNC clearly, by the terms of the financing, was not negotiating from a position of strength>> Really? Aside from the "potential" for a floorless conversion, the terms were excellent. Even the bashers admitted that at the time of the announcement. <<Hence the risk of serious dilution>> Only is CC was not friendly as later proved NOT to be the case with the dropping of the first "floorless". <<the low amount of total commitment in light of VLNC's strained CF requirements>> This was VLNC's choice. Not to mention that CC was happy to come in and offer more funds at a later date. <<As Forbes magazine pointed out, Berg, himself, is regarded as somewhat of a VC lender of "last resort" in SV.>> Post the passage. <<VLNC has been operating on a shoestring B/S for years.>> True, about 2 years, but they never borrowed month to month. <<The net flow of funds - based on the publicly reported sales of VLNC stock by Berg and Dawson over the years - has moved from VLNC to these two insiders rather than the reverse.>> I'll admit that this statement, while implying something dishonest occurred (which it did not), is one interpretation of what occurred. If and when your lawsuit against VLNC ever settles, we'll know if the courts bought your argument. . <<This fact, alone, does not mean that VLNC is a fraud company or will fail.>> Bingo, so stop implying that it means exactly that. <<Nevertheless, it is a significant issue that is wholly ignored by the VLNC "cult" of fervent supporters on this thread.>> Speaking for the "cult", I am fully aware of it, and I really don't see the relevance.