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 : IMDS nasdaq bulletin board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan O who wrote (3787)	12/5/1999 9:31:00 PM
From: Dan O	Respond to of 4122

Misleading Statements about Sales: This company has had no sales since inception. The company has issued numerous public statements on international marketing arrangements. The statements give the impression that revenues could be generated soon since foreign sales do not require FDA approval. The company has contributed to that impression with statements such as that found in Item 1 of the 1997 10k: "The laws of certain European and Asian countries may permit the Company to begin marketing the CTLM device in Europe and Asia before marketing would be permitted in the United States." Though the 1997 and 1998 10Ks explain that foreign sales have other hurdles which are not yet overcome, the 1996 10K contained substantially less warnings. Other public statements issued by the company perpetuate the false impression: 1. On 8/21/95 the Company issued a press release regarding Business Asia Consultants which stated that they will market our product outside the U.S. prior to FDA approval. It even stated that a million dollars of such sales had been lined up. No such sales have occurred. 2. On 7/19/96, Deb Obrien posted on AOL responding to an investor's question about why no international sales had been booked. She stated "Machines have been sold; we have actual invoices-no we have not shipped any yet because - once again I have explained how this process works in other postings. The company has 0 sales this year - the year is not yet over. We do project 22 million sale for the international market-It was never stated that this total amount would be for 1996." This misleading and confusing statement is typical of what the IMDS investor has endured. She appears to be implying 1996 sales. 3. On 7/23/96, Deb posted the news of a new contract and stated that "a contract was signed to deliver 3 systems to Syria." No time frame or conditions were mentioned in her post and no sales have occurred to my knowledge. 4. On 3/7/97, Deb Obrien posted on the AOL board that "The company will not generate revenue from sales until later this year." That was almost 2 years ago and nothing has happened. 5. In a 1/21/98 press release, Linda Grable is quoted as saying that a newly formed relationship with Imation "can provide immediate revenues". None have materialized to date. 6. In early 1998, Scott Phillips, a paid representative of IMDS, posted that the company expected foreign sales in the late spring or early summer of 1998. None have occurred. 7. The recent information statement says that the value of the patent was arrived at by looking at company projections of sales and income. The figures used per the Information Statement were nowhere near the quotes for these figures made by Scott Phillips, the paid representative of IMDS just 2 months before. Who do you believe? 8. The company has recently alluded to further delays. These are examples of the misleading statements the company has made on international sales. Given the desperate need for incoming cash at IMDS, and the incredible dilution shareholders are suffering as a result, misleading or unclear statements about international revenues result in improper shareholder decisions and financial harm.

To: Dan O who wrote (3787)	12/5/1999 9:35:00 PM
From: Dan O	Respond to of 4122

Misleading NASDAQ statements: Note the following timeline and how it illustrates how management mislead shareholders: 3/24/96 Application was filed with the NASDAQ At some unknown point between 3/24/96 and 2/5/97, the application was rejected due to concerns about a minority shareholder. An appeal was made. Deb Obrien of Investor relations continued to post on the message boards as if the application was pending and was held up by new NASDAQ regulations. No attempt was made to inform the shareholders of the initial denial (a material event). In fact, on 9/3/96, she even made the statement that "Our application to NASDAQ has not been withdrawn or denied - it is still pending". 2/5/97 NASDAQ granted CONDITIONAL approval 2/6/97 IMDS issued a press release stating that they had received approval but the release FAILED to mention that there were conditions (a material omission). 2/7/97 Deb Obrien posted on the AOL message board that she will post the trading date as soon as NASDAQ informs her. 2/24/97 Obrien posted on AOL that NASDAQ has "not given us a date", implying that the issue was "when", not "if". 3/31/97 A Barron's article stated that the application was denied and that an appeal WILL be denied. This was the first time shareholders were told that a denial ever occurred. The article quoted a source at NASDAQ which said the appeal will be rejected. 3/31/97 Obrien posted on AOL that the Barron's article was incorrect. While it WAS incorrect about the NASDAQ being determined to deny the application appeal, it was quite correct in stating that the application had been denied in the first place (which investors were not informed of). Despite this, Obrien stated "The Barrons article was incorrect, we have been accepted and as of Wednesday the 26th NASDAQ was reviewing to decide when we will actually be listed." Note that she says "when", not "if". This misstatement was aggravated by a press release on 3/31 stating that NASDAQ's decided that the application "be accepted with conditions. As of this date the Company has complied with the conditions." Investors had not been previously informed of conditions - material omission. 4/3/97 Obrien posted on AOL "We were never denied - end of story." This statement is obviously false since the denial has now been admitted by IMDS in the 1998 10K.. 4/7/97 Obrien admitted in an AOL post that the conditions were made BEFORE the application was accepted. This raises the obvious question why they were not disclosed to investors. 4/7/97 Barrons clarified their article stating that the NASDAQ spokesman they quoted apparently didn't realize an appeal had been decided in the company's favor on Feb 5. The clarifying statement by Barron's did not answer why the company failed to disclose the initial rejection or why they did not disclose that the recent approval was CONDITIONAL. 2/11/98 A press release stated that approval had been received with the condition that the stock price be above $4 per share and that a minimum tangible net worth be demonstrated. 5/11/98 The conditional listing period expired. An ugly history. Do you feel like you were dealt with fairly?