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.

Non-Tech : Cityscape Financial (CTYS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ploni who wrote (1515)	11/3/1997 6:36:00 PM
From: Robert T. Quasius	Respond to of 2544

The law firm does reimburse for travel expenses for lead plaintiffs, according to my discussion with them last week. For me, this really isn't important because my home in Westport, CT is only about one hour, ten minutes by train. I would encourage others to join in. I think that CityScape officers really did us harm by withholding material imformation, and by failing to follow GAAP rules in setting up a reserve for the change in the UK regulations. By failing to set up a reserve and take a charge, the earnings were artificially inflated and we were mislead. Insider selling the day before the UK loan review announcement has a very foul odor to it. Likewise, I sense that big investors got wind of negative material information ahead of the little guys. That's why publically held companies are supposed to disclose material information of this sort. Well, I've vented enough for one day. It's now time to get off of my soap box and get back to other stocks.

To: Ploni who wrote (1515)	11/4/1997 12:23:00 AM
From: William Minich	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2544

While I am no fan of Cityscape management, I still don't quite understand this lawsuit. I have developed the following opinions concerning the whole Cityscape "tragedy". * First - let's talk today's share price ---------------------------------------- Can someone show me any large fundamental changes or ACTUAL financial numbers released that can justify a share price of even close to todays trading price ? We know the earnings will be "materially" off, but based on the original earnings and price, this much ? Yes, their Debt ratings have been cut, but how much of that is related to the drop in share price ? * Secondly --------------------------------- The original lawsuit contends that shareholders were damaged by the events of 8/13 and 8/14. The changes I see on those dates are pretty minimal compared to what we have seen lately These are the closing figures around those dates: 08/08/97 13.000 13.375 12.625 12.875 291,200 08/11/97 13.250 14.000 13.000 13.500 309,700 08/12/97 13.625 13.625 12.000 12.000 1,155,400 08/13/97 11.750 11.812 8.625 10.125 4,067,500 08/14/97 10.500 10.875 10.437 10.500 1,027,500 08/15/97 10.750 10.875 10.250 10.312 557,500 08/18/97 10.375 10.375 9.125 9.250 731,200 Yes, there were some declines, but the stock was on a down pattern anyway. In fact, anyone viewing a graph of the stock would have seen a slow and steady decline throught the year. Now let's look at the past few weeks: 10/10/97 9.750 10.062 9.500 9.562 460,000 10/13/97 9.750 9.750 9.375 9.750 179,000 10/14/97 9.562 9.625 8.750 9.000 887,600 10/15/97 9.125 9.125 7.750 7.937 1,048,700 10/16/97 7.812 8.000 5.687 6.187 3,887,900 10/17/97 6.125 6.187 5.687 6.000 1,355,500 10/20/97 6.375 6.562 5.437 5.500 1,549,500 10/21/97 5.562 5.593 3.187 3.468 12,658,600 Between 10/11/97 and 10/21/97 the only two Reuters and Comtex News pieces were the following: Reuters: 10) 10/14/97 - Cityscape (CTYS.O) faces second class action suit 11) 10/14/97 - CITYSCAPE(CTYS.O) FACES LAWSUIT FOR ALLEGED MISINFORMATION-PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS Comtex: 10) 10/16/97 - Securities Action Seeking Class Action Certification Filed 11) 10/14/97 - Class Action Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Purchasers of the Common Stock of Cityscape Financial Corp. Now notice the price changes !. Indeed, it looks to me as if these two lawsuits are responsible for much of the price declines with the stock. Now, it is my belief that the MAJORITY OF DAMAGE that has been done to Cityscape stockholders has been done because of the filing of these frivilous lawsuits. They was the catalysts that really started this whole rapid devaluation of share price. If they lose the suit (although with everyone jumping onboard for their .02 on the dollar, it would be hard not to get an out of court settlement simply because of the sheer numbers of shareholders involved, especially since they have increased the effective date to October 22.) then I believe they should be held responsible for the damages to the shareholders, although realistically that will never happen. * Third, -------------------------------------------- Assuming these guys were "in the know" and dumping the stock, why did Cityscape's Chairman of the board, Vice Chairman, and Director exercise large options in February of 1997 - shares that they held throughout the UK incident. I don't see Grosner and Patent dumping any shares and they held over 3 million shares each. I believe they all continue to have significant holdings as well. Vickers Inside Trading shows the following information for their chairman as of August 1997. In fact Grossner actually purchased 10,000 shares on 8/13/97 for 10.50 , the entry appears below 08/97 (CTYS) CB GROSSER ROBERT P 08/13/97 10,000 10.50 3,988,444 As far as I can tell he still holds a few million shares. In short, I continue to hold my Cityscape shares. I am in the class qualifications but have decided NOT to participate. As I stated above, I have my doubts as to the validity of the suits and refuse to allow the party that HAS COST ME the most money to earn 1 red cent from my holdings.