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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arlequin fool who wrote (5503)	3/31/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

It is much easier to blame the "short sellers" than to admit you made a poor investment choice. Barb

To: arlequin fool who wrote (5503)	3/31/1998 5:25:00 PM
From: JJB	Respond to of 6735

>>> I seem to recall others predicting Solvex would charge short sellers for their bankrupcty<<< I don't know how you would know this not to be the case. This information would be contained in the reorg plan. As the court clerk indicated to me the filling would not be available till tomorrow morning. A query to Solv-ex also indicated they would not make it available to shareholders till tomorrow morning. jjb

To: arlequin fool who wrote (5503)	3/31/1998 7:39:00 PM
From: JJB	Respond to of 6735

>>> never mind the fraudulent stmts in the press releases made by the company, ie., the lease permit status, production status, the effect of the RegS filings<<< Interesting choice of words "fraudulent" I've seen short posters who consider a judgement by jury for fraud and deceit to be a misunderstanding on par with a traffic ticket. Please substantiate your claim especially concerning REG S statements made by the company. The fact that they relied on SEC enforcement of their own regulations and issuers conforming to their contracts can hardly be blamed on the company. It is my understanding that tomorrows hearing regarding redemption of the floorless debentures have been cancelled. One of the more bizarre aspects has been the SEC involvement. In addition to issuing damaging public comments regarding on going "confidential" investigations they have also shared trade secrets with Solvex competitors. The SEC after being enjoined by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge McFeeley and upheld on appeal by U.S. District Judge Vasquez has appealed the decision to the U.S. 10th District Appeals in Denver. I am to assume as argued in the previous appeal that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the SEC. Why they refuse to enforce their own regulations regarding apparent illegal shorting of Reg. S stock into the market can only be speculated on. jjb