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 : THREE FIVE SYSTEM (TFS) - up from here? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: raefon who wrote (1214)	4/3/1998 1:22:00 AM
From: Noblesse Oblige	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3247

Hi Raefon, Michael.... I have noted both of your posts, and I can only say that it appears that the Williams Act has been violated twice. Of course, I am not an attorney, but that is surely the way it looks to me. Once (I suppose) might be considered an "accident." On the other hand, I have no doubt that many thread participants might consider twice as a "pattern." One can only wonder, of course, what motivation there might be behind such an action, assuming it is as it appears. I admit I am "stumped", but the more I think about it, the more that large trade bothers me. Moreover, one has to wonder why...considering TFS was responsible for printing correct data in its proxy materials...that this question about the missing 5% holders has come to pass despite the necessity for ordinary shareholders to have accurate information. I doubt my attorney would want me to hazard any guesses on this matter, but I certainly have to admit...particularly given my familiarity with Williams Act requirements (I did a ten year stint at a major broker dealer as an arbitrage specialist)...that it looks "peculiar." Tomorrow I am going to have my Counsel determine whether there have been any changes to Williams Act filing requirements since I was in the arbitrage business. That was well before the filings in question, of course, so we will know for certain whether 13D's should have been filed to explain changes in the two positions under review. I am also curious what TFS was responsible to do about this, considering that it appears something "unusual" has taken place. Depending on what he tells me, I will make a determination on whether this entire matter should be called to the attention of the regulatory professionals. After all, issues relating to possible trading peculiarities and/or missed filings would appear to come under their responsibilities, if not mine. Best let the pro's do what they are supposed to do by Law. Have a good evening, gentlemen.