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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : American Eco (ECGOF, ECX on Toronto exchange) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Anthony who wrote (1653)	2/9/1998 8:38:00 PM
From: MARK BARGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2841

It is my speculation that DBCO is pretty much flat out of working capital. They need some cash quickly to keep their operations running. When your're operating a huge operation as theirs' is and it's been so mismanaged so as to bleed as much cash as they have, they may have some critical short term cash needs. They have had to no-bid several big jobs at Davie because of lack of working capital and other needs at their shipyard. It is my opinion that DBCO needs to cut a deal quickly and is in no position to string things and try to hold out for the absolutely highest buy out share price. I think they want to consumate the buy out as quickly as possible so as to use the cash to build the business back up and limit the loss of business before more damage is done. I may be off base, but how else do you explain the apparent $2 a share sell price? Truly a time for Mr. McGinnis to make a name for himself. He did wonders for MM Industra, I hope he can accomplish the same on a much grander scale. Mark

To: Michael Anthony who wrote (1653)	2/9/1998 9:31:00 PM
From: Duncan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2841

<<Duncan, what was the reason that this release was made today? Is it standard procedure because of the proximity of the expiration date? Sounds like it's pretty much done if that 5 mill was actually paid. I'm wondering if the 30 mill total would've been less had Sanda not sweetened the pot with that private placement.>> The release had nothing to do with Thursday's expiration date. I'm guessing that under the rules that govern disclosure issues and practices, DBCO's management and Board of Directors treated the reciept of $30 million to be "material" news to the shareholder community and potential investor audience at large. Sanda's departure from the picture was also deemed to be material, hence the discussion of Sanda in the press release. As for the deal pretty much being done...not necessarily. Often the roughest period in deal negotiations comes in the last fews days or 24 hours before the "close". That's when both sides play games and disclose important "do or die" deal points. They wait until you're salivating at the bit...and throw you a curve ball. If this happens, they'll most likely work through the issues...but it can happen...and has happened to me on several occassions. Par for the course I guess. Until the deal closes, ECO will definitely have protection built into their $30 million...and I don't think the size of the $30 million invested/loaned had much to do with Sanda's departure. DBCO simply needed that amount of money to pursue business opportunities...and ECO didn't want DBCO to lose those opportunities...if they're soon to be one and the same entity. Someone else said or implied that the $30 million came from Banker's Trust. I don't believe that's the case. BT was rumored to be involved in ECO's bond deal...but it's my understanding that BT isn't currently involved with this transaction. Must be some other I-Bank. Duncan

To: Michael Anthony who wrote (1653)	2/9/1998 9:38:00 PM
From: Duncan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2841

<<Duncan, what was the reason that this release was made today? Is it standard procedure because of the proximity of the expiration date? Sounds like it's pretty much done if that 5 mill was actually paid. I'm wondering if the 30 mill total would've been less had Sanda not sweetened the pot with that private placement.>> The release had nothing to do with Thursday's expiration date. Under the rules that govern disclosure issues and practices, DBCO's management and Board of Directors treated the reciept of $30 million to be "material" news to the shareholder community and potential investor audience at large. Sanda's departure from the picture was also deemed to be material, hence the discussion of Sanda in the press release. As for the deal pretty much being done...not necessarily. Often the roughest period in deal negotiations comes in the last fews days or 24 hours before the "close." That's when both sides play games and disclose important "do or die" deal points. They wait until you're salivating at the bit...and throw you a curve ball. For example, the DBCO management team may be dreaming of how they're going to spend their golden parachutes...when ECO's attorney's come along and request 1/2 now and 1/2 18 months from now...or else no deal. If this happens, they'll most likely work through the issues...but it can happen...and has happened to me on several occassions...and not just with parachutes. Par for the course I guess. Until the deal closes, ECO will definitely have protection built into their $30 million...and I don't think the size of the $30 million invested/loaned had much to do with Sanda's departure. DBCO simply needed that amount of money to pursue business opportunities...and ECO didn't want DBCO to lose those opportunities...if they're soon to be one and the same entity. Someone else said or implied that the $30 million came from Banker's Trust. I don't believe that's the case. BT was rumored to be involved in ECO's bond deal...but it's my understanding that the bond deal has been postponed and BT isn't involved with ECO management at this time. I'd like to be surprised...but it's probably some other I-Bank. Duncan