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 : ECNC (OTC:BB) - eConnect -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: makeswaves who wrote (8031)	3/25/2000 7:45:00 PM
From: uthabros	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18222

I thnk your right about the SEC. I've read that the SEC is understaffed and with all the stocks to keep track of how could they possibly make corrrect judgements on all the complaints they get. You know the management line these days is to "do more with less". That's invites mistakes.

To: makeswaves who wrote (8031)	3/25/2000 8:29:00 PM
From: Erik Lundby	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18222

I can appreciate that. The fact of the matter is though that an alliance only exists if both parties say there is an alliance. Mr. buffoloha can look up the definition of an alliance at m-w.com. If one party says they are in an alliance and another party says they know nothing of any alliance then I would tend to agree with the party who doesn't even know the alliance exist. I know I would consider any compnay that I have signed NDA's with fraudulent if they said they had entered into an alliance with me without my permission to do so. Have you read the agreement. It is pretty standard. It is an agreement to not disclose anything they might discuss as they enter negotions to see if they might come to some kind of working agreemetn or contract. These things sometimes work out. they sometimes to not. That is all Empire agreed to it it. I can not believe that Mr Buffaloha thinks it is proper to issue a release calling such an agreement a strategic alliance when the agreement itself contains the folowing words: 4.4 The parties agree to use their best effort to avoid disclosure of the fact or object of their negotiation and to restrict all internal communications to those recipients to whom such information must be disclosed in order to effectively conduct negotiations. Except as otherwise required by law, the parties agree not to issue any press releases or make any public announcements regarding the negotiations without prior written approval of the other. This seems pretty clear to me. I would think it would be clear to others. If I grant (I don't) that it was an alliance. It was an alliance which was broken by the same pr that declared it. This company committed fraud when they signed an agreement saying they would not disclose what they would talk about if they pursue negotions to see if they could work together and then issued a press release saying that they in a strategic alliance. Unless there is some obscure definition of "the parties agree not to issue any press releases or make any public announcements" that exist in buffalohas dictionary. What I do not understand is why you people don't at least take the above information and say why would a company break it's NDA to release news to internet posters. Hint: They valued the announcement of a relationship more than anything they would lose by violating the contract governing disclosure of Negotiations. You say you have entered into some NDA's yourself. Have they all reselted in a contract or working relationship? How can you enter a working relationship with someone that Fraudulently signs an NDA and then does the opposite of what they just agreed to. Erik P.S. Please excuse the spelling errors. My wife is pregnant, bedridden and hungry and I don't have time to spell check as I must go cook. :-)