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 : Corel Corp. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommy D who wrote (4848)	2/24/1998 7:22:00 AM
From: A. Reader	Respond to of 9798

Hi Tommy, <I was away last week and read the releases regarding once again changing the method of reporting revenue> Suit accuses Ottawa software firm of issuing 'materially false, misleading' financial statements Corel itself may have "opened the door for this kind of suit," said Duncan Stewart, partner at Tera Capital Corp. "Any time you have a company restating its numbers and changing its method of revenue recognition, it raises questions" for investors. canoe.com

To: Tommy D who wrote (4848)	2/24/1998 7:38:00 AM
From: opalapril	Respond to of 9798

Tommy D: The suit as described represents very big trouble for Corel. It also should be Cowpland's exit line. >>much different than the one [Vanni] had been focusing on<<? Not at all. Bear in mind the differences between a legal basis for suit by shareholders [in this instance, Corel's fundamentals always made it a $1 stock but company execs were hiding those fundamentals in their reports to the public], evidence of wrong-doing [reporting phony "sales" to inflate the stock], and mere evidence of motive [Cowpland makes millions selling his $1 shares for $8]. In other words, the insiders knew for a very long time that they were lying to inflate the stock. When the decision was reached that they had no choice except to empty the channels, restate, and revise future reporting they understood what you could not know: the jig was up. This was and would again be a $1 stock. So they sold. You didn't. They played you and others for a sap. Now they're rich and you aren't. The only other shoe to drop is when the SEC gets into the act with criminal charges.

To: Tommy D who wrote (4848)	2/24/1998 7:43:00 AM
From: opalapril	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9798

One more thing: This suit is just the opening act by a substantial investor represented by a solid law firm. Watch for more from good firms as well as the sharks. Once the herd gets the scent of blood in the water, $1 a share may look good in retrospect.