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: Gary Green who wrote (7605)	11/1/1997 6:45:00 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12454

There is a 1.2 million Short position on the stock for 10/97 Down from 1.5 million on 9/97. VEEEERRRRY INTERESTING

To: Gary Green who wrote (7605)	11/1/1997 11:17:00 PM
From: Lee Kennedy	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 12454

>> What is your point Lee? << I think my point should have been obvious. Considering your background, there is every reason to believe that your interest in this stock is more than that of an ordinary stockholder. Rick has pointed out that if you work for CCC you would be required not to reveal that fact. >> What is your view and your reasoning with regard to what we shareholders should do in response to the proxy solicitation of management?<< My view is that NONE of the proposals are in the best interests of the shareholders and should all receive a resounding NO vote. >>Why waste a post on a frivolous issue that required you to distort?<< I'm not sure what you mean by distort. You said you charge $300 dollars an hour. I said I had guessed $260 based on past experience. My intention in writing about the other attorney was to point out that IF you are working for CCC, you are being well compensated for your time online. >> 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?<< I've already expressed my opinion offline on this topic. I think management has tried what is tantamount to a scare tactic to accomplish their real purpose. They make all these really horrendous proposals with the idea in mind that shareholders might be willing to accept a small reverse split if they(the company) will shelve the other proposals >>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? 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.<< My opinion is that if CCEE is reversed now, there is every chance that the price will be back to 70 to 80 cents by next March UNLESS some of the promised news comes out in the meantime and that is no mystery factor. I've seen it happen too many times. Lee

To: Gary Green who wrote (7605)	11/2/1997 12:54:00 AM
From: james reinhart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

Gary, If you give them the reverse split then your giving them the authorization for the additional 150 million shares to be issued for the ongoing financing of 'projects' of the co. One has to follow the other. You talk about them going the way of the pink sheets. Man, if this happens, we're no better off than most BB stocks that have questionable management, bs press releases, and NO revenue. Softworks is great, (recent pr had no hard #'s) but all their revenue is sucked down into a black hole, CCEE entity, along with shareholders hard earned money. Management has given us NOTHING... to trust them with the recent requested mandate to dilute our current investment by half. I don't want the co to fold... but I do want to vote NO on all of the proposels and force a vote to REMOVE Dan Sr. AND Dan Jr. from their positions on the board. Get them the hell out of all operating decisions going forward. To date, under their watch, we, the shareholders of this co. are being completely ripped off. On top of everything the date of the shareholders meeting is the final straw, a slap in the face, and a final affirmation that these guy's are S_BAGS. In fact, they put a good face on the meaning of S_BAGS. If something comes out between now and then I shall apoligize, but for now, RICK has been entirely correct. To the friggin' T. JR ps I hope to meet you at the meeting. Philadelphia is almost my home town. Jersey boy, right across the WW bridge. My girlfriends dad is a 3rd generation Phila. lawyer and I have great respect for him and the tradition.