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 : TMMI - Total Multimedia -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: taxgun who wrote (7290)	2/12/1998 2:13:00 PM
From: Larry Panik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19109

jp, I do agree, it is absurb that the company will be put into chapter 7. BUT! A few cases before the Judge converted a case from 11 to 7 on grounds that I thought was absurb. This Judge is fair but will not stand for games. We should have been prepared. We weren't! It is that simple. The judge wants "I" dotted and "T" crossed. It is that simple. If not BYE! and jp, I called it as I saw it so it is my observation only. I do wish more shareholders were present to give their comments. March 18 in Woodland Hills, Ca. All be there! Larry

To: taxgun who wrote (7290)	2/12/1998 3:00:00 PM
From: Dennis P	Respond to of 19109

...i AM very disappointed they went unrepresented, but as was mentioned earlier, that just seems to be another detail with not enough attention paid to... JP, I think the FIRST detail you should deal with when going to any court hearing is being adequately represented. Here's a message from echo from last week (emphasis added by me): Paul, It seem a lot of people have missed the point. The reason we are having a hearing is by design, we let unresolved items in the BK to protect us under the umbrella of the BK court. ( ie ISI, Danlot ect..) We must give a status report every 6 months. I'm not sure if there will be an appearance or not, but we have sent a status letter to the court. Just to make it clear this is not a court ordered appearance but a status report to tell the Judge if we need his or her help moving claims forward. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer as long as they are public information. Tom s. Are the items "left unresolved" the fact that the lawyers haven't been paid and payments to the court are 5 quarters behind, OR didn't the hearing even get far enough to discuss those "unresolved items"? And if not, do we have several surprises waiting for us on March 18? Also, did we really expect the court to help us moving our claims forward if our payments are 5 quarters behind? Thanks for attending and reporting Larry. Also, could someone explain the ISI thing? Is that the Itered problem?