SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ron C who wrote (14068)8/21/2000 12:51:40 PM
From: LowtherAcademy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 60323
 
I can just see a crack team of attorneys slapping their
foreheads in unison, screaming..."He can't say that!!!!"
Attorneys....ya gotta luv 'em.



To: Ron C who wrote (14068)8/21/2000 3:33:19 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 60323
 
Ron,
Thank you for providing the link to that filing. Interesting reading indeed! If I had bought Lexar stock after hearing it, I would be dumping it after reading the filing. However, either people don't read it, or don't care, because the stock is around 11 3/4 right now. Amazing. As the filing says: <<Investors should not rely on casual comments like the ones above when making an investment decision. Rather, investors should consider all of the information in the entire prospectus and rely only upon that information.>> Aren't the indemnification clauses in all of these prospectus's wonderful? Lawyers really do have a crucial role, if only they wouldn't abuse it so.

Just for our record on this thread, the text of the filing follows, though it is For Personal Use Only and is copyrighted by FreeEdgar (I think):

==========================================================
Filed pursuant to Rules 424(b)(3)
and 424(c)
Registration No. 333-30556

AUGUST 18, 2000 SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS DATED AUGUST 14, 2000

As a result of events that occurred after the attached prospectus was
printed, we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a revised
prospectus to add or amend the following information in the locations
indicated.

Additional Risks

The following risk factor was inserted on page 22:

Statements made by our chief executive officer in interviews could lead to
liability to public investors in our company.

On the morning of our initial public offering, our chief executive officer
granted multiple interviews to television commentators and Internet
publications. In these interviews, various questions elicited responses that
included information quoted below that is not reflected in this prospectus.

. ""We do have line-of-sight to profitability and expect that to occur in
the fourth quarter of next year." This statement and other similar
statements reflect our current projections, but we could fail to meet
those projections for all of the reasons stated under "Risk Factors."

. ""We're the only company that actually offers all the different
formats." "We now sell all types of digital film for all cameras. And
we're the only company that can make that claim." These statements are
substantially accurate; we currently offer digital film in the four
primary media formats currently used by digital cameras. We are not
aware of any other company that currently offers digital film in all
four primary media formats.

. ""Our business is growing by leaps and bounds....." "It's a massive
market. Photography in total has gone from about eighty-five billion
dollars to a hundred and twenty-five billion over the last couple of
years, and nearly all of this growth is coming from digital photography.
So we figure that's a large enough market for us to be a multibillion-
dollar company in the not too distant future." This statement
extrapolates from industry projections and estimates, some of which are
included in the prospectus. While the total market may be large enough
to allow one or more companies to achieve significant scale, there can
be no assurance that we will be one of those companies or that the
market will continue to grow as it has in the past.

. ""Well, we basically see, you know, digital cameras themselves going
from about six or seven million units, eight million units perhaps, on
the outside, to well over forty million units in just the next three
years. And so we expect our growth will pretty much mirror the growth of
the digital photography camera sales themselves." While we believe that
we will be able to maintain our current market share and therefore to
grow at the rate of the market, we cannot assure that this will happen
for all the reasons stated under "Risk Factors."

. ""We think our competitive advantage in this business is the rapid
market share that we're actually gaining in the digital film market,..."
"...we had about twenty-five percent market share in the after-market
flash business. And that's about from zero just about a year and a half
ago." This statement accurately reflects market share estimates
developed for us, but it is compiled by sampling and we have not
independently verified it.

. ""We think that we can become profitable with a relatively modest market
share....Our goal is to be the dominant supplier of digital film, and
the expectations I think we've calibrated with the analysts are very
achievable." For us to achieve profitability with a modest market share,
the market must grow substantially. There can be no assurance that this
will happen or that we will meet analysts' expectations for all the
reasons stated under "Risk Factors."

. ""Although I understand that some investors are concerned about our
risk/reward profile, I think our shares at $8 represent a terrific
opportunity for investors." This statement accurately reflects our chief
executive officer's view, but should not be taken as a recommendation by
us or the underwriters.

1
<PAGE>

. "Reimer said Sandisk attempted to buy Lexar a few times already to gain
access to its technology." While this statement regarding the attempted
acquisition is true, we are not in a position to know Sandisk's
motivation.

. "Our technology allows us to do that (take pictures) faster than most of
our competitors." While our redesigned products have met our
requirements for functionality, we cannot be certain that the redesigned
products will have all the functionality, including the high write
speed, of our current products.

Investors should not rely on casual comments like the ones above when making
an investment decision. Rather, investors should consider all of the
information in the entire prospectus and rely only upon that information.

The broadcasting or dissemination of these interviews to persons who did not
have a copy of the prospectus might be deemed itself to be a prospectus that
did not meet the requirements of the Securities Act and thus a violation of the
Securities Act. If we are found to have violated the Securities Act, then for a
period of one year from the date of the violation, persons who saw or heard any
of these interviews and did not have a copy of the prospectus might bring a
claim against us. In that action, they might seek recovery of the consideration
they paid for their shares or, if they had already sold their shares, damages
resulting from their purchase and sale of those shares. We would contest any
such claim vigorously.

Additional Contingency

The following language was inserted after the paragraph about the SanDisk
litigation in Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations on page 34.

Possible Contingent Liability. On August 15, 2000, prior to the closing of
our initial public offering, one of our officers made statements about our
company in public interviews. These public interviews might be deemed to be a
prospectus that did not meet the requirements of the Securities Act and thus
might be considered to be a violation of the Securities Act. If we are found to
have violated the Securities Act, then for a period of one year from the date
of the violation, persons who saw or heard any of these interviews and did not
have a copy of the prospectus for the initial public offering might bring a
claim against us. In that action, they might seek recovery of the consideration
they paid for their shares or, if they had already sold their shares, damages
resulting from their purchase and sale of those shares. We intend to contest
any such claim vigorously. At this stage, it is not possible to estimate the
amount of any possible loss from these potential claims.

The following language was inserted at the conclusion of "Subsequent Events"
on page F-26.

On August 15, 2000, prior to the closing of the Company's initial public
offering, one of the Company's officers made statements about the Company in
public interviews. These public interviews might be deemed to be a prospectus
that did not meet the requirements of the Securities Act and thus might be
considered to be a violation of the Securities Act. If the Company is found to
have violated the Securities Act, then for a period of one year from the date
of the violation, persons who saw or heard any of these interviews and did not
have a copy of the prospectus for the initial public offering might bring a
claim against the Company. In that action, they might seek recovery of the
consideration they paid for their shares or, if they had already sold their
shares, damages resulting from their purchase and sale of those shares. The
Company intends to contest any such claim vigorously. At this stage, it is not
possible to estimate the amount of any possible loss from these potential
claims.

Other Revisions

In addition, the footnote references after "Commitments and contingencies"
on page F-3 was revised to include a reference to note 13 and page F-2 was
revised to modify the date of the accountants' report to show that Note 13 was
dated August 17, 2000.

2



To: Ron C who wrote (14068)8/21/2000 5:23:07 PM
From: Ausdauer  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 60323
 
<font color=green>Bizarre Lexar IPO filing</font>

Ron,

That was an awesome find!

Lexar's latest SEC filing seems bizarre to me. I have never seen such a submission before. I sounds kind of like "we're covering our asses" because we said too much on the IPO day.

I think this statement is peculiar...

"Reimer said Sandisk attempted to buy Lexar a few times already to gain access to its technology." While this statement regarding the attempted acquisition is true, we are not in a position to know Sandisk's motivation.

To begin, between 1996 and 1998 I believe that the current owners of Simple Technology owned and funded the operations of what is now Lexar Media.

Message 13369885

In 1998 SanDisk also filed suit against Lexar regarding their controllers. Funny that Simple Technology no longer uses Lexar Media controllers. It is hard to believe they would just walk away from Lexar if it truly was a ripe acquisition target.

Is it possible that SanDisk tried to purchase Lexar Media when it was still controlled by the Simple Technology founders? Or perhaps SanDisk tried to purchase Lexar Media subsequently (subsequent to Simple Technology's divestiture) in order to avoid a protracted legal battle that Reimer threatened to wage? But why would Simple divorced itself of Lexar if the controller technology is that valuable? I find that peculiar.

I suspect that SanDisk tried to co-license the Lexar controller technology in return for the licensure of SanDisk's CF assembly patents. But rather than negotiate a licensing agreement perhaps Lexar chose to challenge the SanDisk IP. SanDisk subsequently did a co-licensing deal regarding CompactFlash with SSTI who also sported a flash controller with CF write times in excess of 1 MB/sec (I believe it was about 1.4MB/sec) in 1998. Thus, at that juncture, Lexar's technological advantage may have lost some of its street value (and SNDK was no longer interested in purchasing the technology outright).

I suspect there may have been a time when SanDisk tried to acquire the basic content of the Cirrus Logic IP along with Lexar's enhancements. According to Lexar this happened on several occasions. However, recall that SanDisk is a flash memory design house, not a controller design house. For example, the purchase of INVOX (which Steve mentioned) was spurred by the fundamental MLC technology, not controller technology.

SanDisk has subsequently spent some R&D dollars beefing up its controller technology. If you look at the MMC specs you will see that SanDisk is not too shabby in its controller designs. Also, I doubt that the write speeds are anywhere near 100KB/sec as Steve suggested. SanDisk may remain quiet about these specs because...

a) there may still be a mixture of older and newer controllers on store shelves,
b) the SanDisk CF write speeds may not be leading the industry and they have no need to highlight this,
c) current digital camera designs don't depend critically on these write speeds for most consumer-oriented models.

In any case, Lexar, for whatever reason, has chose a path of litigation over negotiation. The simple fact that they are redesigning their CompactFlash assembly is, for all practical purposes, an admission of guilt and a direct result of the SanDisk legal victory this Spring. Whether or not SanDisk tried to purchase Lexar at one point is no longer releveant. And to state rather nebulously that the redesign will be complete by the end of the trial litigation is absurd. These court cases seem to have the potential to drag on forever.

All IMHO.

Ausdauer