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 : Solucorp Industries (SLUP - OTCBB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hawkeye who wrote (69)	5/3/1998 11:15:00 PM
From: Arcane Lore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3679

Even if all of the questioned contracts check out, I believe there will still need to be a 15c2-11 filing. Based on my impressions of the situations of other companies which have been the subject of trading halts, the SEC does not declare a trading halt without a reasonable basis (this doesn't, of course mean the company or anyone else is necessarily guilty of anything - but it does mean that the SEC has apparently reached the preliminary conclusion that the current public information is inadequate or misleading). Often their preliminary investigation prior to the halt will include one or more interviews with the company. I don't know if that happened in this case, but it is possible that some of the questions raised by SEC have already been pursued in discussions with the company. If so, it appears that SEC may not have been satisfied with the answers and/or may have felt the information in the answers needed to be publically disseminated. If there was no prior discussion with the SEC then might be a little more cause for optimism (but unfortunately probably not much more IMO) On a possibly related note, there was an AP Wire story that appeared on 5/1/98 concerning the suspension. Included in the story was the following sentence giving SEC's reasons for the trading halt. "The SEC said it took the action because of questions about the accuracy of Solucorp's official statements regarding, among other things, its contracts with other companies and U.S. government agencies including Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Environmental Protection Agency." Note that (1) the AP description is more specific than the rationale given in the SEC Digest and (2) it does not mention the China contract which was mentioned by the company per an earlier post. Instead it singles out two U.S. government entities - the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the EPA (and also mentions other, unnamed companies). Presumably even with the China MOU, SEC would still have an easier time verifying contracts with other U.S. Government entities than with a Chinese entity. It is, of course, possible that the AP story may be incorrect. The full story is available through the AP Wire archives. Unfortunately providing links to AP stories is a bit of a challenge. Probably the best thing is to go to their home page at wire.ap.org. Select a newspaper from one of the four pull down menus (I don't believe it matters which one). Click on the 'search' button at the bottom of the resulting page and then search for "solucorp" (without the quotes of course). The story will not be available after 5/8/98 since AP Wire keeps their stories around for only a week. Here is the corresponding text from the SEC Digest: "The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of Solucorp because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things: (1) the negotiation, existence and terms of contracts entered into by Solucorp or its licensees during the period July 1, 1995 through the present; and (2) recently projected revenues." edgar.sec.gov

To: hawkeye who wrote (69)	5/3/1998 11:36:00 PM
From: junglejims	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3679

It sounds like a bunch of BULLSHIT to me from the last few posters who do not put there real name and have never posted here before,and have all these facts all of a sudden handy for us to read about other companys and what happened to them and what the Sec will do and won't do. The bottom line is someone is YANKING the company's chain again! I have been involved with this company for a long time and I can tell you that you that I doubt any of you posters got a statement from Solucorp in the last few days and especially what you are trying to say what the company told you. If you want to give me your Real name I will personally phone Peter,Bob,Jim or Joe and ask if that is true that they talked to any of you and gave that kind of information which I will say BULLSHIT to you or I will publically apoligize to you but I doubt I will get a real name to verify your story and conversation. So if you are a shorter of the stock I hope you have a big bank account because you are going to need it. THIS IS a real company with a real product and REAL profits. K.Moore