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 : OILEX (OLEX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: baron-marney who wrote (1820)	12/5/1997 10:13:00 AM
From: Richard L. Williams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4276

To the Baron: I view the recent drop in OLEX' price, as well as that of the other oil-related stocks to OPEC's announced 15% increase in oil production and the lessening of tension with Iraq. What I'd like to know, if oil prices drop, can Oilex make a profit? Specifically, at what price point ber bbl does Oilex' process for removal not make a profit? Thank you, Rick Williams

To: baron-marney who wrote (1820)	12/5/1997 12:15:00 PM
From: jamess	Respond to of 4276

baron, do you have a clue as to who is dumping 100s of thousands of shares at prices in the 10 cent rage???? james

To: baron-marney who wrote (1820)	12/8/1997 1:40:00 PM
From: Prudent Investor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4276

Baron I have a question that has been previously asked but not answered. I consider this question of the utmost importance to all investors of Oilex, Inc. Since you are now the official representative of Oilex, would you please be so kind to answer this simple question. What is the exact and precise relationship between Allen Burditt and Oilex, Inc.? If you cannot answer this, perhaps Omar could. It does not seem too difficult.

To: baron-marney who wrote (1820)	12/9/1997 4:44:00 PM
From: Prudent Investor	Respond to of 4276

To All: The recent 10QSB included information concerning the $1,375,000 debenture issued by Oilex to Austost Anstalt Schaan. This information contains material that I believe is pertinent to the lawsuit that was not reported in SEC documents because it would not have a "materially adverse affect" on the company. The lawsuit is, in my reading of it, for approximately $1,400,000, plus costs and attorney's fees. I arrive at this figure by multiplying the number of unrestricted shares the plaintiff claims he should have received (1,400,000+) by the price of the shares at the time of their promised delivery (approximately $1.00/share). I do not intend to argue the merits of the claim. That is what they have courts for. The fact is that the suit has been on file since February 7, 1997, and has gone unreported in SEC filings. It is possible that the plaintiff might prevail and judgment of over $1,400,000 could be entered against the company. Aside from the fact that Oilex would have difficulty appealing such a judgment (in Texas, one has to post a bond to appeal, costing 10% of the value of the judgment-$140,000), much less satisfying it, it appears that this possible outcome could have other serious adverse effects on the company. I will now quote from the 10QSB filing dated September 30, 1997. However, I urge individual investors to read the document in its entirety to form their own opinion. (Section 8) "If one or more of the following described Events of Default shall occur (and shall not be caused by misrepresentation or omission by Holder in Holders Subscription Agreement) and continue for 30 days unless a differed period is otherwise stated below: (g) Any money judgment, writ or warrant of attachment, or similar process, in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars in the aggregate shall be entered or filed against the Company or any of its properties or other assets and shall remain unpaid, unvacated, unbonded or unstayed for a period of fifteen (15) days or in any event later than five (5) days prior to the date of any proposed sale thereunder;" "Then, or at any time thereafter, and in each and every such case, unless such Event of Default shall have been waived in writing by the Holder (which waiver shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default) at the option of the Holder and in the Holder's sole discretion, the Holder may consider this Debenture immediately due and payable, without presentment, demand, protest or (further) notice of any kind (other than notice of acceleration), all of which are hereby expressly waived, anything herein or in any note or other instruments contained to the contrary notwithstanding, and the Holder may immediately, and without expiration of any period of grace, enforce any and all of the Holder's rights and remedies provided herein of any other rights of remedies afforded by law". What this tells me, in layman's terms, is that if the plaintiff is successful in the above lawsuit, it could trigger the default clause in the Debenture as provided by the above clause 8(g). That could make the entire $1,375,000 plus accrued interest immediately due and payable. Considering that the company is paying consultants in stock because it does not have cash, it is hard to see how it would be able to pay any significant judgment, or even post bond to appeal such judgment. For those who have said that this lawsuit does not constitute the threat of a "materially adverse affect" on the company, I beg to differ with you. It appears to me that the company had a duty to report this lawsuit in its SEC filings and let the shareholders make that determination for themselves. Just my humble opinion. Prude