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: Rich Wolf who wrote (14877)	9/28/1999 2:04:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<And given that the SEC filings showed them to be beneficial owners of over 4.9% of the outstanding common, many of us expected them to have to file with the SEC if they ever did short.>> Wrong. Owners of 5% or more of the common must submit a SC 13G filing to the SEC. Castle Creek never submitted such a filing. Therefore, as I told you in February, your conclusion that Castle Creek must file if they short was erroneous. For that matter, Daddy Warbucks has not filed a SC 13G either, which led you guys to the "multiple Warbucks" theory, rather than acknowledging that Daddy Warbucks may simply be selling his shares (quite possibly before he buys them). <<Interesting that this piece of secondhand information from within the company (regarding CC shorting) is somehow acceptable to you to be treated as 'fact,' yet other information reported by company officers, even over public conference calls, is not only ignored by you, but rejected and even ridiculed (by your friend 'noway' on yahoo).>> I did not need second-hand acknowledgements from company management (many months after the fact) to convince me that Castle Creek was shorting. I tried to tell you guys that last February when you and Paul adamantly claimed that Castle Creek would not, and could not be shorting. As far as what the company says in conference calls, I don't believe I have ever ridiculed what they say. My comments are usually about what they don't say (e.g., last November when they refused to say they had sent out production samples and when Lev acted ignorant of the variable conversion issue, or this August when Lev avoided Harold Hartsfield's question about how much production capacity they have now). Or possibly I question the spin you guys give to what they say (e.g., $76 million run rate expected within 12 months is spun to mean $76 million run rate within a few weeks).