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 : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas L. Lewis who wrote (5453)	12/11/1997 10:33:00 PM
From: george eberting	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10368

To all of you who have commented on my proposal and request for input, many thanks. I received several replies by e.mail from folks who are not contributors here but who hold BNGOW, BNGO or both. The mood was overwhelmingly supportive of any effort to modify the warrant call by extension, or otherwise. Interestingly, most who wrote to me acknowledged the potential for legal problems and expressed concern about equity to those who have already sold their warrants. Several also repeated what has been said here by a few: "No way will they sell at these prices." They'll just let their warrants expire. I won't hold them to that. We all have been guilty of saying or doing things in moments of anger and frustration, and then repented. The thing I was most hoping for today was for some creative ideas to be suggested which might diminish the more obvious problems associated with a modification of the call. Not many good ideas came forth. One which I thought worth considering, however went something like this. Extend the warrant call for a period of time - say 90 days. However, for each 30 days of extension a premium would have to be paid. For example, a 5% premium for 30 days, 10% for 60 days, and so on. So, if one converted any time within the 30 days following the expiration of the original call it would cost $5.25 per share instead of $5.00. If one coverted during the next 30 day period it would cost $5.50 per share. This would give some relief to those who are going to run out of time before they can find the needed money. But it would also "punish" them for not being prepared. This method would also provide some equity for those who have already sold in that late converters are not getting a free deal the early sellers would no longer have access to. I truly believe that the company needs to do something to make up for the manner in which they handled the call. They need to try to restore stockholder confidence to some degree. George

To: Thomas L. Lewis who wrote (5453)	12/12/1997 9:22:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen	Respond to of 10368

Thomas: You state in your post: A couple of quarters down the road, and with a NMS listing, this warrant call would have been little more than a bump in the road. The following is from BNGO website Q&A: We called the warrants primarily for three key reasons: 1.To improve the Company's long-term capitalization; 2.To obtain investment capital to pursue several lucrative investment opportunities; and 3.To increase assets to a level sufficient to qualify for NASDAQ-NMS listing. I don't think you can assume there would be an NMS listing a "couple of quarters down the road" WITHOUT the warrant call. In addition, achieving NMS status should make BNGO available to a new, and more powerful, group of investors - those who invest on margin and institutions. TKA