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 : Terayon - S CDMA player (TERN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: silicon warrior who wrote (848)	4/20/2000 3:12:00 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 1658

Silicon: Just reread my post. Yeah, I was a bit harsh. Please accept my apologies. I just couldn't see where you were going with your logic, but I think I do now. After reading all the letters posted at the TERN website, I can see where your analysis is going. Its a good one, particularly if one is defending TERN management. To be honest, I do not know enough about these litigation matters to assess how events in the future impact a court on the issue of materiality. As I see it, at first brush, timing is critical. You have civil litigation based upon a class of individuals defined by a class period. You have insider trading rules that are based not just upon the release or withhold of information, but also upon the timing thereof relative to trading conducted by an insiders who are in possession of such information BEFORE it is made publicly available. Just think if you were the misinformed guy who bought when a guy like Ray Fritz was selling, then you got margined out on your shares prior to the nature of this whole affair coming to public light along with the March 2 letter. The letter wouldn't do you much good, would it? And it shouldn't if the issue of materiality is arguably be limited to the period in which the subject trading took place. Also consider the hypothetical that assuming the letter is found to be immaterial the question of materiality is not resolved for a year or two. What remedies should be available to the fact that the letter was material at or near the time of insider trading and a year following such activity? How the law looks beyond the class period to conclude on the issue of materiality I honestly don't know. As I read the March 2 letter, I do agree with you, it appears to be a retraction of the conclusions CableLabs came to upon when it issued its cease & desist letter to TERN on February 2. However, the letter also implicitly warns TERN to be more cautious in the future by asking for "assurance that [it] help in communicating the [talking] points to the public so that CableLabs can dismiss [the] matter." To me, the foregoing implies that all issues regarding this matter have not been laid to rest; that CableLabs even though has retracted its accusation regarding affirmative conduct by TERN official leading to erroneous conclusions by the public, CableLabs does not appear fully satisfied that TERN has acted in good faith in the matter. In short, I don't find the March 2 letter as completely exculpatory in the eyes of CableLabs. Of course, you could read it differently, as I presume many others here would do also. I question the communication going on "behind" this letter, as in my mind, it implies. This letter, IMHO, is obviously a PR relations effort by both CableLabs and TERN to portray a positive light on this matter quell market concern on this matter, but I think there is more here than what's expressed within the four corners of the letter. But that's JMO. Notwithstanding the conduct by TERN that led to issuance of the February 2 letter, I still maintain that the March 2 letter does little to mitigate the materiality of the February 2 letter which had been issued in and around the time of increased insider selling but withheld from the public light while insiders sold their shares. The hypothesis here is that materiality is not constant with time, and will vary with the course of events over time. The fact of the matter was that TERN management was in receipt of a cease and desist letter at the time shares were traded by insiders. If I had been advising TERN management at the time I would have advised the Rakib brothers and their CFO not to sell their sells if they intended to withhold the CableLab Labs letter and the course of dealing leading up to its issuance from public view. But if they insisted on selling, then I would have told them to release the letter to the public along with a TERN written statement describing the surrounding circumstances, then I would have advised to sell their shares. This is what Rule 10b-5 provides. I would have advised them of the foregoing not because I would have necessarily convinced of the letter's materiality at the time, but rather of the likelihood that it could be interpreted as such, and therefore present an undue risk of insider trading violations if the letter and matter it represented came to public light in an unfavorable view at a later point in time. Again, silicon, sorry if I offended you.

To: silicon warrior who wrote (848)	4/20/2000 3:21:00 AM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 1658

Silicon Warrior should be Ballless Warrior. It's all GG's fault. Portfolio got you down? Don't feel useless, you can (and will) always be used as a bad example !!! To: George Gilder who wrote (3358) From: silicon warrior Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:40 PM ET Respond to Post # 3359 of 3364 Well, Mr. Gilder, you've led many to their injury in MOT and TERN as well. Hope you appreciate the losses many have suffered for "believing" in what you say. We were burned bad on MOT, and TERN is a debacle at this point. Subscribing to GTR has been hazardous to my financial health, and that of many others, at least recently.,