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 : Adaptec (ADPT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charlie Smith who wrote (1305)	3/23/1998 11:18:00 AM
From: Ahmad Ascha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5944

Charlie: That's exactly where the problem is . The Management knew all along that business conditions were not good, and despite that they continued to make announcements to the contrary. Ahmad

To: Charlie Smith who wrote (1305)	3/23/1998 11:56:00 AM
From: Brendan W	Respond to of 5944

Charlie, with respect to Morgan Stanley's FY99 EPS estimate ... is it a fair assumption that most of the analysts will not figure in Symbios' contribution because the deal has not closed? Symbios employee humor ... what should the merged company be called? ADIOS.

To: Charlie Smith who wrote (1305)	3/23/1998 12:42:00 PM
From: Mark	Respond to of 5944

Charlie, I have no idea how the case could be built - my experiences are limited to the behavior expected of an officer in a public company under UK law. I have yet to see an example of any company documentation which might be construed as "misleading" the market, so don't know if this approach would be successful. HOWEVER, in the UK if an officer acts on information which is known to him, AND which is NOT known to the investment community, AND makes a personal gain from that information, then this is considered "insider trading" and is a very serious offence. Whilst the company secretary (as the keeper of the "rule books") will police insider activities and advise on suitable times for officers to trade, it is only the opinion of the regulatory bodies judging things in retrospect which counts. I have no idea whether the same conduct of behavior is expected under US law. However I would observe that a number of the later officer transactions fall perilously close to the time when they might have "reasonably have been expected to know" that earnings were in decline. Observations, not legal opinion :) Mark