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 : IMES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tralornik who wrote (1483)	3/19/1998 8:09:00 PM
From: Zakattack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1901

Who are you? I think I know you... Aren't one of the co execs. Forgive me for being so forward, but I couldn't help pulling up your profile: Member 4487145 Very curious!!! <g> Z

To: Tralornik who wrote (1483)	3/19/1998 8:18:00 PM
From: Gary Stern	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1901

Listen trailerpark, I'm not sitting silent and letting your nonsense go unanswered. Read my posts, if you are interested in my bona fides. Some people have spent an incredible amount of time working to rescue IMS from the hands of those who are about to buy it out of bankruptcy for pennies; after they put it into bankruptcy. Tom Childs engaged counsel to protect all our rights. He didn't ask your permission to help you nor did he ask you to guaranty payment to counsel. This horsespit about "who would send money to a lawyer" sounds like rhetoric by someone who wants the company stolen out of bankruptcy. Only a shill for those who would destroy our equity would write those words. We all need to support Tom Childs and the group he is working with. They have my support and they deserve yours.

To: Tralornik who wrote (1483)	3/20/1998 1:45:00 AM
From: snowman49	Respond to of 1901

Your cynicism is justified. The anonymity of the internet frequently makes it very difficult to separate fact from fiction. But in this case the scenario being played out is very real. And although the broad picture has been spelled quite accurately on previous posts many of the background details have yet to be filled in. In response to the value of the "legal defense fund" and attorneys: earlier today I was made aware of a manuever by the "other guys" that was to occur later this afternoon and required action in Texas. Not being an attorney and not having info on the outcome I will wait for others to fill in the blanks. None of this comes free. I would urge you and any others who have assumed a "wait and see" position to contact Tom Childs if you have any doubts about the urgency of our situation or need a beginning point for your own research. LM

To: Tralornik who wrote (1483)	3/20/1998 10:29:00 AM
From: Thos	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1901

Firstly, it is regrettable that I was portrayed as an attorney, I am not. But I have been in the investment business for a lot of years, and I believe that we know what we are doing. Aside from the cynical comments about paying the attorneys _ WHICH WE are doing out of our pockets, including the much appreciated contributions from other shareholders - Let me tell you what the attorneys have accomplished. The effort by the people responsible for placing IMES in bankruptcy - and I certainly don't refer to the directors - has been to strip all the assets from IMES on an unusually fast track and leave nothing. The alleged C.E.O. (the word is 'assumed' in the Press Release - and that is what he did - he certainly wasn't voted in by the board) of IMES was at yesterday's court hearing, and the fast track demands by IPIQ to steal your assets, people, were partailly struck down. You were represented by counsel, and he was partially successful. We have until about 1 April to do something about this. Hoevel indicated that he "would be more than pleased to meet with alternate funding agents", and with a little luck that's what is going to happen. The result should provide a considerably enhanced position for the shareholders. We'll see. As a result of a filing by the U.S. Trustee and the S.E.C. - yes Tralornik - the S.E.C. having taken a considerable interest in the methodology of the people involved, and I would venture to suggest that there is at least one other alphabet style agency about to do some serious digging. Even the judge has indicated that he wants the principals of IPIQ to review their personal positions regarding this bankruptcy. You know - directors of the firm they're pillaging - LESS than 2 WEEKS BEFORE they precipitate the bankruptcy. Their answers to the judge and the other interested agencies should bear careful - and amused scrutiny. I don't know how much your investment was, Tralornik, and it really isn't any of my business, but it's all relative. In my book words, particularly the cynical variety that you use, are pretty cheap. It's results that we're looking for here, whether it's for 100 shares or for 1mm. That goes equally for the attorneys' fees, if talk isn't all that you're made of. Finally you're position regarding the voting blocks of shares is uninformed, if anyone is particularly surprised.

To: Tralornik who wrote (1483)	3/20/1998 2:26:00 PM
From: Kenneth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1901

"Who in their right mind would send a check for $100 to some lawyers to act on their behalf?" Tralomik, you're absolutely right! Nobody should just read this thread about some lawyers representing the investors and send in a cheque right away without finding out more details. I did. I called and talked to one of the lawyers at the firm and I believe I have made the right decision to send the money in. I suggest everbody call the lawyers and decide whether or not to send in any money. "What chance do we have when the officer(s) hold so many shares?" If the officers have commited a crime, it really doesn't matter how many shares they own. If we win the case and get compensated, that's great. If I cannot get my money back, at least I can teach those bastards a big lesson and that's all I care. Everybody has to make their own choices but it is hard for me to believe that someone will do nothing just because he thinks that nothing can be done. I believe all the investors are on the same boat and should not fight against each other but the IMES management board. I just don't understand why Cadence has not stepped in to help IMES. If they are willing to loan IMES some softwares worth millions of dollars, they should be able to come up with the needed financing. That really puzzles me. IMES could have sold CDN the exclusive right for the IMSLIB for millions, instead they chose to sell everything for a mere $135K. Damn, my headache's back! Sincerely.