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.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (9293)	7/18/2011 7:20:25 PM
From: streetscraper	Respond to of 53574

"bogus crap" He keeps that up and he will fit right in on that board, next they will want him as a mod . LOL

To: scion who wrote (9293)	7/18/2011 8:09:22 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

"Wells" notice To: SteveF who wrote (4189) 12/23/2010 11:52:10 AM From: scion [...] Some companies disclose an SEC investigation in the early stages after initial contact from the Staff. More often, companies will wait until receipt of a "Wells" notice, which indicates that the Staff has decided to recommend to the SEC that the SEC authorize an enforcement action. Other factors to consider are the materiality of the investigation (e.g., where the company or a whistleblower reported the matter to the SEC in the first place and the underlying facts known to the company suggest that the scope of the fraud is material) and the likelihood of a restatement or enforcement action. A company should also consider, from the standpoint of materiality, the scope of its insurance coverage and whether it would be exposed to significant unreimbursable defense costs. Message 27045941 quarterdeck1 Share Monday, July 18, 2011 8:02:45 PM Re: BRIG_88 post# 120438 Post # of 120443 Me too, I was there and that subject never came up it wasnt even concocted until long after the AGM on other boards