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 : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael d kugler who wrote (23722)	12/4/1997 7:39:00 PM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

<November 2nd, 1997, > thats what I thought. I was under the impression, at that time was when the value of the 144s was supposed to be equal to $1.5m. Thats why I couldn't understand a suit prior to it.Why would Olympus have agreed to this deal in 1995 if the equipment was worth $1m. Odd that 14 months later an apprasial was done(Jan 97) DD

To: michael d kugler who wrote (23722)	12/4/1997 10:52:00 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

The shares should have come off restriction on November 2nd, 1997, assuming the maximum holding period for 144 stock was changed to two years (regardless of what the holding period was when received) on May 1,1997. Haven't you mis-stated here? Didn't the rules changed FROM two years TO one year? And was there no grandfathering to change the holding status of these chares?

To: michael d kugler who wrote (23722)	12/4/1997 10:59:00 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

Nelson/Barons says they weren't paid. RMIL says the deal wasn't worth what was originally paid. But, in light of the apparent financial difficulties which led to the eviction of Barons and the take-over by JEM III, it seems difficult to believe they were getting the work which was promised and announced. Hm, so it seems Olympus filed suit because Barons/Nelson overstated the asset value. It would follow then, wouldn't it, if Barons/Nelson would do that, they may not have paid their bills and that's why they were evicted (as you say they were)? So, um, how is this bad for RMIL as you made it out to seem? Doesn't sound like they did ANYTHING wrong here!! Cool! Thanks Mike!!