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.

Technology Stocks : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Dubsky who wrote (1547)	12/5/1997 8:14:00 AM
From: mooter775	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Still maintain that posts # 1537 (diablo) and #1539 (wm sharp) are right on, and I know that my information posted regarding line 2 is correct, since it came from one in senior management and in a position to know. Also, Board was aware of CR's intention to sell and in fact approved the sale (although I think reluctantly and with obvious regret and perhaps recrimination in hindsight). What does that tell us about their confidence that something bad isn't going to happen, assuming they have any degree of fiduciary responsibility?

To: Paul Dubsky who wrote (1547)	12/5/1997 12:55:00 PM
From: Gordon Quickstad	Respond to of 27311

<<I do agree with the post that if Reed knew of bad news, especially in retirement, he'd have sold MUCH MORE than 7% of his total stake. Threat of lawsuit or not, a 50% or 75% sell would have made much more sense,>> It's illegal to trade on insider information. It would have been more than the threat of a lawsuit, it would have been assured. The 7% figure leaves him virtually assured that his lawyer will not be calling him on his cellphone on the open seas.