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 : Vari-L (VARL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (2529)	10/7/2000 10:07:19 PM
From: akmike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2702

Hi, Bosco ...I wouldn't want to take it out on the interim mgt. and KPMG. I don't think I said anything derogatory about KPMG. I certainly didn't intend to. I did directly say that interim management has been getting high marks for communication from some (you incl.) and haven't told us much and what they have told us doesn't pass the test of reasonability. For example, why give out a press release that they will be able to tell us what 9-month revenues are in a few days? Why haven't they been able to tell us what 6-month revenues were long ago? If you've read the PR's, you will also know the original BoD is a goner,... There were seven on the BoD. Sherman, Kiser, and Bailey are not on the BoD any longer. That leaves 4 directors from the old board. To my knowledge, none of them have ever worked for the company. Are you aware of any particular business experience or skills that these 4 have? These people have employed the interim management. They employed bankruptcy specialists. Why? All three of the resigning members of the Board were personally named in the shareholder class-action suits. It is appropriate that they are no longer on the Board, but please convince me that the remaining Board members have some capacity to represent our interests. It is simply incorrect to console oneself with the thought that whoever made this mess is gone. To amplify on your analogy of your misfortunate friend's trip to the hospital, what if his wife encountered a medical staff where the 3 top professionals had just been forced to resign and the hospital management was replacing them with a mortuary firm? Should the wife make further inquiries or "give them a little more space for now"? What if the "head undertaker was telling her that in a few days he would tell her whether or not her husband was still alive. (and calling that information) As I read my late-night post in the light of day, I believe that I was much more than just venting frustration, albeit there was certainly some of that. Interim management admitted to coming up with the 30-35 mil. write-off and implied that it was based on KPMG's work. My review of the KPMG work which was filed with the SEC does not support that magnitude of write-off, particularly in the plant and equipment accounts. Surely, even a non-accountant can grasp the concept that short-lived equipment which is producing a growing revenue stream can't be worthless? I candidly stated that I did not know any of the board members. If they are, in fact, naive about business matters and under siege with this mess, would it be unreasonable to believe that they are concerned about their own exposure for liabilility? Perhaps even more concerned with that than with the fiduciary responsibility of looking out for the rest of us? If they did lack the business experience to put everything in perspective and take the necessary actions to protect our interests, when and how should we respond? Do we have a right to call a special shareholder's meeting and get some important answers? If we do have such a right when do we exercise it? I appreciate your response and would be interested in your further thoughts. Best, Mike