To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8763 ) 2/11/1998 5:13:00 PM From: Bill Fuller Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13091
C'mon Ron "As for shares being sold by the company, I believe that all sales were fully recorded on form 144 and publically disclosed as such." Well, I think you mean by BC, not 'the company', since 144 is the form for registering INTENDED sales of restricted securities - much different from Form 3, 4 & 13-D which report ACTUAL sales and purchases of shares, and the prices, by officers, directors, and insiders - and which are the forms are NOT being filed.. And I certainly don't recall, in the life of this group, or your newsletter, and disclosure of Form 144 filings for anywhere near the amount sold - my imperfect memory is only of something like 30,000 shares - which by itself prompted a small outcry about 'why is BC selling shares.' As for the time period - well, it was from 3/96 to the suspension of trading in 5/97 - maybe not a calendar year, but not much more than a single 12 month year - and where did your comment come from anyway - I didn't say anything about one year! You also wrote "...despite the fact that Carraway has no avenue in which to defend himself." Well, he could respond here - but I assume that he is busy defending himself to the SEC. As you may recall (do I have to go back to the 10-QSB again) the SEC action against, BC, his wife, BO and other confederates is still pending - and offers the promise of the disgorgement of money from the C's to GRNO - a NEW source of funding for operations! I'm not insinuating anything that the SEC has not already placed in public view, as reported by the company. Also you say "I prefer to look at the amount of shares that Carraway, his wife, and family continue to hold. This provides them a vested interest in re-establishing market/shareholder confidence in the company." Well Ron. I prefer to look at what they ACTUALLY own - not counting the options, as they have NO REAL MONEY invested there. I'll feel much better when they start exercising them in BIG blocks - which they could do NOW, instead of lending the company money - although, strangely enough, most of the financials I've looked at seem to show the C's OWING GRNO money, rather than being OWED. (OK - back to the 10-QSB) "The Company loaned the Chief Executive Officer $186,000 during the second quarter of 1997. The monies were repaid in the following quarter. In addition, during the same period the Company paid $100,000 in legal fees for its Chief Executive Officer and other directors which are related to the SEC investigation." As to the future - I agree - everything depends upon the equipment working as promoted. Of course, the ethical standards of management, as expressed by past actions, may also influence the interest of any potential investor. In my view the disclosures of the past year certainly raise questions that have as yet to be explained, and the continued determination of the officers and directors - and obviously the C's - NOT to make the disclosures required of a '34 Act company's officers and directors, while having GRNO masquerade as a '34 Act company by filing 10-K's, 10-Q's and 8-K's, should raise questions for any potential or actual shareholder...such as yourself... Remember - "He who ignores the past is doomed to repeat it." Bill Fuller