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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Gahm who wrote (32245)	4/18/1998 1:27:00 PM
From: DJBEINO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

SIA Surprises South Koreans With Late Resolution By Jack Robertson April 20, 1998, TechWeb News The U.S. Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) submitted a last-minute resolution to the World Semiconductor Council (WSC) in Carlsbad, Calif., last week to prevent any International Monetary Fund money from being used to bail out South Korea's chip makers. "We decided it was time to turn the World Semiconductor Council into a real organization with some force," an SIA member executive told EBN. Sources said that the private session became tense after the unexpected resolution was introduced by the SIA, which reacted to a report from South Korea last week that the government there was planning to use $700 million in World Bank relief funds to buy debt and equity shares in financially distressed companies. Sources at the WSC session said the Koreans objected to the last-minute introduction of the resolution because they didn't have time to prepare a response. SIA officials reportedly asked why the Korean SIA couldn't affirm in a WSC resolution that its country's chip makers would not receive IMF money, a claim that it has already publicly stated.

To: Dave Gahm who wrote (32245)	4/18/1998 1:59:00 PM
From: John Graybill	Respond to of 53903

A check of MU's own S-8's is a good start: They have had two in relatively recent time, 11/97 (also mentioned) and 7/96 (no mention). The phrasing in this case that it is "unenforceable" and "against public policy" is very interesting, though. That's a first.

To: Dave Gahm who wrote (32245)	4/18/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: John Graybill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Oops! Ignore my previous reply! I checked all of MU's S-8 reports on EDGAR. Some have the indemnification in them, some don't. But in every case where they include the indemnification, the "Exhibits" part has the same rebuttal that it is "unenforceable" and "against public policy".

To: Dave Gahm who wrote (32245)	4/18/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Dave, what if the indemnification isn't really for the 32 million shares or any potential insider selling? I just read through MU's history as posted on their web site. I also read through press releases. I did not read through all their SEC filings, but I will slug through them. Right now, I'm not seeing where they announced any sort of "merger" with a corporate entity known as Micron Quantum Devices, Inc. The only mention I'm finding of it is that sample notification letter in the S-8. If someone can point to a document showing me where MU informed its shareholders of this transaction w/ MQD, I'll drop the subject. The history given on the MU site does make mentions of several past mergers. For example ZEOS + Micron Computer + Micron Custom Manufacturing Services merging into MUEI or Micron Semiconductor being merged into MU's operations. I think both were in FY'95. Did the "merger" between MQD and MU require prior shareholder notification and/or approval? Would that depend on the type of transaction (i.e. cash-for-MQD stock v. MU stock-for-MQD stock v. cash-and-MU stock-for MQD stock)? Good trading, Tom