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 : Ampex Corp. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: phoenix2 who wrote (5560)	6/27/2008 8:32:45 AM
From: YerMOLE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5839

Not a conspiracy or master minded takeover. Culmination of many years of borrowing against and underfunding the pension fund (mishandling) which legally never showed on the books. Great history for Exec/BOD salaries, bonuses, perks and options but someone must pay as promissory dates on larger and larger amounts plus interest become more rapidly over extended.

To: phoenix2 who wrote (5560)	6/27/2008 8:12:36 PM
From: James Feldman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5839

There is no mystery here. <<After the firing of Bramson and the hiring of Strickland at AMPEX and subsequently driving the stock price to 0 (almost) and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, anyone know why Hillside is so anxious to gain control of AMPEX?>> Why do you say that Bramson was fired. Would a fired CEO get to maintain the same NYC office as he always has, along with an office assistant, office supplies, etc.? Would he get paid a consulting fee? The Board would have been empowered to fire the CEO, but can you identify a single instance in which the Bramson appointed Board voted against Bramson's instructions? <<Also, why are they so fearful of a full audit and review of AMPEX's operation?>> What do you mean besides the regular audits and reviews? Do you mean a forensic audit? At any rate, why would you expect officers and the Board to want anything investigated? <<In addition, it sure would make more sense if Ampex would disclose the report(research/review)findings of M-CAM and Commercial Strategy to the bankruptcy court since Ampex have not disclosed it to the shareholders and are attempting to eliminate the equity shareholders through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.>> It might make sense to you to want the disclosure of such information, but why would you expect Ampex officers and the Board to want such disclosure? <<By not disclosing the report findings, which they had a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholder to disclose, it sure make them look bad and suspect.>> To borrow the words of the CFO in another context, "I'm sorry you feel that way." <<What are they hiding?>> No comment for now. <<If Hillside succceeds in the takeover of Ampex, they would be paying only about $50M+ with a simple debt for equity swap.>> I do not understand how you are concluding that Hillside is paying $50 million. And whom are they paying? <<Anyone know who is master minding this takeover?>> You act like there is some sort of mystery here. As a wise Roman said long ago, "Cui bono," which basically means "Who benefits?" The "mystery" is then solved. It's particularly easy in this case.