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 : AremisSoft Corporation (AREM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (469)	6/30/2001 11:00:34 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 683

ZIXI wouldn't do this because the charges against them can be easily substantiated and there were ample shares available to short. Unfortunately that's beside the point. The "charges" against AREM, and their recapitalization plan are two entirely seperate issues. Since you're apparently ignoring most of this discussion I'll recap. Basically the contention is that the SEC will allow AREM, through a process called "recapitalization", to arbitrarily force a buy-in on its entire short interest. Every share. The idea frankly strikes me as ludicrous but at least two people on this very board are telling me in all seriousness that it's going to happen and "it's as simple as that". And lest you think that this is just some bizarro theory concocted by the aliases in your ignore list, I'll quote no less that Irwin L. Jacobs himself: "I believe this means all short stock sells will have to be covered in order to meet the Company's proposed procedures in turning the old stock certificates in for the "to be issued" new AremisSoft stock." irwinljacobs.com That's why I'm saying that if AREM is allowed to do this then there's no reason I can see why any other company that chooses to feud with its short sellers, like ZIXI, would not jump at the chance to do likewise. But I can hardly expect anyone here to believe me over Irwin Jacobs no matter how sound my logic, which is why I'm trying to enlist you, as someone long AREM, who would nevertheless understand what a silly and dangerous precedent the SEC would be setting by allowing events to occur as Jacobs and the other posters here forecast. I agree it's sad when one of your quiet little holdings turns into a three-ring circus but there's little you or I can do about it now so we're going to have to deal with it as it is. Ignoring it all might work for you but I know deep down I couldn't manage it.