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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : CCEE Breaking Out -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7603)	11/1/1997 4:49:00 PM
From: Gary Green	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12454

What is your point Lee? Where is the substance in your argument? What is your view and your reasoning with regard to what we shareholders should do in response to the proxy solicitation of management? Why waste a post on a frivolous issue that required you to distort? I ask this because, despite the normal combativeness of this thread, we now need a time out to lay on the table some substance and to canvass opinions of the voting shareholders. You eschewed any of that. You are responding to a post of mine where I said I do not work in any capacity for CCEE, will not be paid by it and if I I was the person doing the outside proxy solicitation, it would ME who would pay the costs, personally. Next, it is obvious that of all of management's proposals, I urge a "NO" vote, with the lone exception of the reverse split. In your eyes do you think management would declare victory if everything was defeated except the authorization for a reverse split? Why did they bother to print up that cumbersome proxy solicitation and to undertake proposing the other items that infuriated, and got the attention of the otherwise sleepy shareholders if all management really wanted (according to your implied argument) was the one proposal that I advocate? What is your opinion about the price and ability to properly trade stock in CCEE if it does not do a reverse split, the stock stays at the 70 cent to 80 cent price, and CCEE is delisted by NASDAQ--and sent to the unsupervised wild west known as the pink sheets? If you did not sell your shares before that happened do you think you would be better off with say 10,000 shares of CCEE trading at some price under a dollar(assuming no reverse split) on a bulletin board run by a few tiny stock brokers; or assuming a 1:2 split, having 5,0000 shares trading at over a dollar on NASDAQ? If you have had good luck with bulletin board stocks, I suppose you oppose the reverse split on the grounds that even though it is a directly proportionate, across-the-board reduction, there is a mystery factor that will depress the stock. I see the other side of the coin. I agree 100% with what Pugs argued in his recent post: There is no rational way the company can justify simultaneously, a reverse split along with a massive dilution. That is precisely my point. A reverse split is needed, not because CCEE internally decided it would be a good idea, but rather, because NASDAQ said if a stock does not trade over a dollar, it will be delisted and banished to the pink sheet bulletin board. I believe that the bulletin board is an invitation for manipulation of the grossest kind, and I think that this stock's price is so low that if there are any positive events the stock will reach a level that will make me forget about the split. Also, every major stock has institutional owners. Due to price limitations on what institutions can buy, the split is more likely to attract such ownership along with the stability it brings. I am a lawyer, not a stock broker nor an expert in finance. I am basing my opinion concerning the split on what I have read as an investor and what my brokers and clients have taught me over the years. As I said before, I invite substantive, critical analysis of my opinions from anyone who has a better knowledge base than I (which to my knowledge excludes only Rick for a certainty). I got a kick out of one thing Rick said " Denial of all (i.e. no votes on all 15) forces them to put up or fold by March." FOLD? what investor who spent hard earned money would want CCEE to FOLD? On the contrary, the shareholders should want to insure that in March, regardless of whether the market is still a bull, is not in a retrenchment or is not annoyed at CCEE (for good or irrational reasons) that the stock is still traded on NASDAQ. Rick of course, prays for CCEE to fold!

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7603)	11/1/1997 7:53:00 PM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

Lee, I would point out to you that the Rules of Professional Conduct which apply in PA, protect the very FACT of a representation, if the client does not specifically, authorize and consent to the disclosure of the representation. Thus if you ask a lawyer "Do you represent CCEE", and if CCEE doesn't want anyone to know about, it the Lawyer must say something like this: >>>You are responding to a post of mine where I said >>>I do not work in any capacity for CCEE, ========================== Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b). (b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent the client from committing a crime, including disclosure of the intention to commit a crime; or

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7603)	11/1/1997 9:39:00 PM
From: Rick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

Lee, Also of interest is the issue of SOLICITATION OF CLIENTS/ADVERTISING. ============= ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct :(excerpt) On the other hand, lawyer participation in an electronic bulletin board, chat group, or similar service, may implicate Rule 7.3, which governs solicitation, the direct contact with prospective clients. The Committee does not believe that merely posting general comments on a bulletin board or chat group should be considered solicitation. However, of a lawyer seeks to initiate an unrequested contact with a specific person or group as a result of participation in a bulletin board or chat group, then the lawyer would be subject to the requirements of Rule 7.3. For example, if the lawyer sends unrequested electronic messages (including messages in response to inquiries posted in chat groups) to a targeted person or group, the messages should be plainly identified as advertising material. jmls.edu

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7603)	11/1/1997 10:41:00 PM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

Lee AND ALL, In light of what has gone on on this thread during the last 10 months some of you might be interested in this, and perhaps want to send an e-mail to your Senator, telling them that the internet is a place of abuse by all kind of unsavory characters (including me if you so believe), and that you want them to consider regulating the PROFESSIONALS (i.e. brokers, lawyers,etc.) who use/abuse the internet but that you do not believe in regulation that restricts the free flow of honest and truthful communications. At any rate here is a list of the e-mail addresses of all Senators,which might be of interest. ================= Senators to weigh penny-stock scams WASHINGTON (September 18, 1997 12:15 p.m. EDT) - A Senate subcommittee next week starts looking into how well state regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission and others have been policing penny stock fraud. The investigations subcommittee of Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, will take up the issue at a hearing Monday amid concerns that despite Congress' 1990 reforms, there has been an increase in scams involving these low-priced stocks. "Securities regulators estimate that penny stock abuses result in the defrauding of American investors to the tune of some $6 billion a year, three times the peak figure during the 1980s," Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who chairs the subcommittee, said Wednesday. Collins said more Americans may be vulnerable to stock scams because "millions of new investors have flocked to the booming stock market." "It is no wonder that these individuals, confronted with the prospect of astronomical tuition bills for their children, or escalating medical costs for themselves, succumb -- often after relentless pressure -- to misleading sales pitches promising high returns," Collins said. SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt will testify before the panel, which will also hear from consumers and other regulators. The lawmakers will look into the SEC's recent enforcement efforts and those that have been undertaken by state securities regulators to root out micro-capital scam firms. The panel will also investigate how to curb repeat offenders who move from firm to firm. "You have terrible repeat offenders who are still in the industry," an aide said, adding that the panel will consider tougher policing of individuals in addition to the companies that employ them. Alabama Sessions, Jeff (R) senator@sessions.senate.gov Shelby, Richard C. (R) senator@shelby.senate.gov Alaska Murkowski, Frank H. (R) email@murkowski.senate.gov Stevens, Ted (R) senator_stevens@stevens.senate.gov Arizona Kyl, Jon (R) info@kyl.senate.gov McCain, John (R) senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov Arkansas Bumpers, Dale (D) senator@bumpers.senate.gov Hutchinson, Tim (R) senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov C California Boxer, Barbara (D) senator@boxer.senate.gov Feinstein, Dianne (D) senator@feinstein.senate.gov Colorado Allard, Wayne (R) senate.gov Connecticut Dodd, Christopher J. (D) sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov Lieberman, Joseph I. (D) senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov D Delaware Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D) senator@biden.senate.gov Roth William V., Jr. (R) comments@roth.senate.gov F Florida Graham, Bob (D) bob_graham@graham.senate.gov Mack, Connie (R) connie@mack.senate.gov G Georgia Cleland, Max (D) senator_max_cleland@cleland.senate.gov Coverdell, Paul (R) senator_coverdell@coverdell.senate.gov H Hawaii Inouye, Daniel K. (D) senator@inouye.senate.gov I Idaho Craig, Larry E. (R) larry_craig@craig.senate.gov Kempthorne, Dirk (R) dirk_kempthorne@kempthorne.senate.gov Illinois Durbin, Richard (D) dick@durbin.senate.gov Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) senator@moseley-braun.senate.gov Indiana Lugar, Richard (R) senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov Iowa Grassley, Chuck (R) chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov Harkin, Tom (D) tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov K Kansas Brownback, Sam (R) sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov Kentucky Ford, Wendell H. (D) wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov McConnell, Mitch (R) senator@mcconnell.senate.gov L Louisiana Breaux, John B. (D) senator@breaux.senate.gov Landrieu, Mary (D) senator@landrieu.senate.gov M Maine Collins, Susan (R) senator@collins.senate.gov Snowe, Olympia J. (R) olympia@snowe.senate.gov Maryland Mikulski, Barbara A. (D) senator@mikulski.senate.gov Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) senator@sarbanes.senate.gov Massachusetts Kennedy, Edward M. (D) senator@kennedy.senate.gov Kerry, John F. (D) john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov Michigan Abraham, Spencer (R) michigan@abraham.senate.gov Levin, Carl (D) senator@levin.senate.gov Minnesota Grams, Rod (R) mail_grams@grams.senate.gov Wellstone, Paul D. (D) senator@wellstone.senate.gov Mississippi Cochran, Thad (R) senator@cochran.senate.gov Lott, Trent (R) senatorlott@lott.senate.gov Missouri Ashcroft, John (R) john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov Bond, Christopher S. (R) kit_bond@bond.senate.gov Montana Baucus, Max (D) max@baucus.senate.gov Burns, Conrad R. (R) conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov N Nebraska Hagel, Charles (R) chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov Kerrey, J. Robert (D) www.senate.gov/~kerrey/pages/webform.html Nevada Bryan, Richard H. (D) senator@bryan.senate.gov Reid, Harry (D) senator_reid@reid.senate.gov New Hampshire Gregg, Judd (R) mailbox@gregg.senate.gov Smith, Bob (R) opinion@smith.senate.gov New Jersey Lautenberg, Frank R. (D) frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov Torricelli, Robert (D) senator_torricelli@torricelli.senate.gov New Mexico Bingaman, Jeff (D) senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov Domenici, Pete V. (R) senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov New York D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R) senator_al@damato.senate.gov Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D) senator@dpm.senate.gov North Carolina Faircloth, Lauch (R) senator@faircloth.senate.gov Helms, Jesse (R) jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov North Dakota Dorgan, Byron L. (D) senator@dorgan.senate.gov O Ohio DeWine, Mike (R) senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov Glenn, John (D) senator_glenn@glenn.senate.gov Oklahoma Nickles, Don (R) senator@nickles.senate.gov Oregon Smith, Gordon (R) senate.gov Wyden, Ron (D) senator@wyden.senate.gov P Pennsylvania Santorum, Rick (R) senator@santorum.senate.gov Specter, Arlen (R) senator_specter@specter.senate.gov R Rhode Island Chafee, John H. (R) senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov Reed, Jack (D) senate.gov S South Carolina Hollings, Ernest F. (D) senator@hollings.senate.gov Thurmond, Strom (R) senator@thurmond.senate.gov South Dakota Daschle, Thomas A. (D) tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov Johnson, Tim. (D) tim@johnson.senate.gov T Tennessee Frist, William H. (R) senator_frist@frist.senate.gov Thompson, Fred (R) senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov Texas Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) senator@hutchison.senate.gov U Utah Bennett, Robert F. (R) senator@bennett.senate.gov Hatch, Orrin G. (R) senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov V Vermont Jeffords, James M. (R) vermont@jeffords.senate.gov Leahy, Patrick J. (D) senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov Virginia Robb, Charles S. (D) senate.gov Warner, John W. (R) senator@warner.senate.gov W Washington Gorton, Slade (R) senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov Murray, Patty (D) senator_murray@murray.senate.gov West Virginia Byrd, Robert C. (D) senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov Rockefeller, John D., IV (D) senator@rockefeller.senate.gov Wisconsin Feingold, Russell D. (D) senator@feingold.senate.gov Kohl, Herb (D) senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov Wyoming Enzi, Mike (R) senator@enzi.senate.gov Thomas, Craig (R) craig@thomas.senate.gov

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7603)	11/2/1997 11:09:00 AM
From: Donna Carey	Respond to of 12454

I owned the stock Lee is referring to where the lawyer posted several long arguements as to why the shareholders should vote for the reorganization plan that included the reverse split. Lee is also correct as to the hourly fee this lawyer received to do so. (so you'll forgive me if I so not feel sorry for any lawyer who has his fee reduced by a judge) Have any of you that see the merits of this proposed reverse split, ever been through one yourselves? I doubt it. Some suggest that a reverse insures that we will retain our NASDAQ listing, but it insures nothing. You are assuming that the stock price will hold or even climb. First of all, if the merits of these supposed deals can't push the stock price up to $1, do you really think it will hold a post reverse stock price if the deals don't materialize? Secondly, if the deals are for real, there shouldn't be any need of a reverse to GET the stock up to $1. I am in total agreement with you Lee, as to why you are against these proposals.