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.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Lock-Up Expiration Hell Portfolio -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmpa who wrote (266)	7/14/2001 12:48:25 AM
From: keokalani'nui	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1005

hmpa I like the sound of that...if it could only happen in my life... "SI Friends BT Partners Fund XIXIVI, domiciled, domesticated, and housebroken in Bermuda. Winter headquarters at Punta Rincon, summer in Ashland. $100m minimum. Wilder & Assoc, sales." Back to earth, I honestly don't think the VCs are circumventing contractual lock-up covenants the same way hedgefunds circumvent SEC ownership disclosure by offshore ownership of LP general partners. No VC in Seattle does what you suggest. I doubt they do it on or off Sand Hill. New York? Well, maybe you're right. And there is a way to write around the shennanigans you mention, "not you nor any person or entity contolled by or under common control with you or in whom you have a direct financial interest shall...." Could you imagine a VC passing through gains from a prohibited short sale to its investors reporting it in the same K-1 it distrubuted the shares? Could you imagine a VC advising its investors to short a company in its portfolio that just went public? i dunno, maybe it happens. Incidentally, I think the convertible indenture purposefully allows shorting by not prohibiting it, so that is just not a good comparison with an IPO encumbrance, me thinks. Could be wrong though...I am so naive so often. Wilder