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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arcane Lore who wrote (24680)	2/12/2000 4:07:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

I was wondering about all this too. In the complaint, SI is thus described: Silicon Investors [sic], upon information and belief, is a corporation established and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware... But now they're owned by GNET. Are they still an independent corporation? I really don't know the answer to this question. The description of RB: Raging Bull, upon information and belief, is a corporation established and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware... Still true after the AltaVista purchase? But then let's face it: the complaint is full of mistakes of all kinds. And I wonder why all the signature pages show a date of "January ____, 2000", when the suit was in fact filed on 9 February.

To: Arcane Lore who wrote (24680)	3/9/2000 7:24:00 PM
From: Arcane Lore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

In connection with their upcoming IPO, AltaVista filed an updated registration statement earlier today. As with their 11 Feb 2000 S-1/A, the filing included the following pithy statement concerning pending litigation: Legal We are not a party to any material legal proceedings. freeedgar.com It's just my opinion of course, but somehow I believe AltaVista does not believe it will be paying AZNT $250 million as a result of the lawsuit. The only remotely plausible alternative explanation* I can think of is that the preparers of the AltaVista filing took the stance that since they hadn't been served (at least according to several parties posting on RB) they didn't need to acknowledge the suit in the filing. Given the predilection of such filings to discuss risks that border on the fanciful (for example, I have seen some IPO filings after Jan. 1, 2000 which list Y2K risks), I find this alternative explanation unlikely. IOW if AltaVista regarded the suit as material they would have mentioned it in the S-1/A even if they had not yet been served (IMO). * If uncertain of the relevance of the filing to this thread see the post to which I'm responding. ** Given that the lawsuit was discussed in the WSJ IMO it is totally implausible that AltaVista is currently unaware of the lawsuit.