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 : Advanced Engine Technologies (AENG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (629)	6/10/1998 1:17:00 AM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Respond to of 3383

Carefull TRAV:Judge Approves $55 Million Claim On Brennan Estate Over Hibbard BY PAUL BECKETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL A federal bankruptcy judge in Trenton, N.J., approved a $55 million claim against the estate of Robert E. Brennan to settle an investor class action concerning the financier's alleged involvement in now-defunct securities firm Hibbard Brown & Co. The settlement gives the investors the second-largest claim against Mr. Brennan's bankruptcy estate after a $75 million judgment imposed on him and his brokerage firm, First Jersey Securities Inc., by a federal judge in June 1995. That judgment stemmed from a Securities and Exchange Commission case brought against Mr. Brennan and First Jersey in 1985, alleging that they defrauded customers in the early to mid-1980s. First Jersey closed in 1987. Mr. Brennan filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy-law protection in August 1995. The settlement, approved Monday, also partially resolves a parallel action brought against Mr. Brennan by New Jersey securities regulators concerning his alleged secret control of Hibbard Brown and another securities firm, L.C. Wegard & Co. The settlement precludes state regulators from seeking disgorgement of improper profits from Mr. Brennan's estate. But they continue to seek civil monetary penalties and an injunction against Mr. Brennan personally,according to state officials. A trial is scheduled to begin in September. The class action was brought on behalf of about 60,000 former customers of Hibbard Brown, said Jeffrey W. Herrmann, partner in Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf of Saddlebrook, N.J., who represented the investors. They alleged that Mr. Brennan controlled the public offerings of seven securities that were sold through Hibbard Brown at allegedly inflated prices, he said. The investors allegedly lost about $150 million, Mr. Herrmann said. But the value of Mr. Brennan's bankruptcy estate is expected to fall far short of the total of approximately $140 million in claims against it, so the investors may ultimately receive only about one quarter of the $55 million settlement amount, he said. The settlement was entered into by the investors and Donald Conway, a Princeton, N.J., accountant and court-appointed trustee who now controls Mr. Brennan's bankruptcy estate. Mr. Brennan had opposed the settlement. Neither Mr. Brennan nor his lawyers could be reached for comment. The settlement must now be approved by U.S. District Chief Judge Anne Thompson in Trenton. The investors" class action was brought before her in 1993, but the settlement first needed the approval of the bankruptcy judge, Kathryn Ferguson, who is overseeing Mr. Brennan's bankruptcy proceeding.

To: wonk who wrote (629)	6/10/1998 1:31:00 AM
From: wonk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3383

To the thread: I went to the trouble to research the patent issue because my integrity was called into question by Mr. Travis in message: exchange2000.com I responded to him as follows: exchange2000.com I received a private message from Mr. Travis over the weekend apologizing for his comments. I ask him to retract in this public forum what he wrote in his response. Perhaps he is busy with other matters so I will wait a little longer for him to do so before commenting. Having done the research into the patent issue, I would suggest that comfort can be drawn from the fact a valid Australian patent exists. However, as of yet, there is no independent confirmation of a valid US application except for the letter posted on AENG's website. I would also recommend that the comments of the experts be heeded in regards the breadth or narrowness of a patent and its ultimate value. Notwithstanding the validity of the australian patent, in my opinion, AENG has engaged in hype. In particular, the torque and horsepower graphs comparing the engine to a 350 V8 is misleading due to the extrapolation of the curves. Again, in my opinion and experience, a reputable professional engineer would not dare to present the information in such a fashion. Also, I continue to be concerned, perhaps unjustifiable so, that the Shelby and Teague letters have not been posted as graphics on the website. They certainly did it for the patent attorney letter. These letters would be no more trouble. I am glad that civility seems to have broken out on the thread, except for some posts which have seemingly disappeared. Is the author in Jill Jail? Finally, I would like to get into a discussion of the valuation of the stock. Some very large numbers have been thrown around which I think will not pass the "reasonable man" test. IMO, the current stock price is unsupportable. But that is the purpose of this forum. ww

To: wonk who wrote (629)	6/10/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: RAY BARBER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

To w.w What a masterful job of obtaining and posting information. I appreciate it very much even though I'll have to admit I don't understand what it all means. I printed the information to study and on the first page under Dwg.1 the information starts and continues on the second page with: Patent Assignee: ADVANCED ENGINE TECHNOLOGY PTY Inventor: Manthey S C Number of countries: 067 Number of Patents: 008 (question) What are the eight patents and what countries patented the engine or did they just patent a concept, and for whom? Further down after a bunch of other information I don't understand either, it says: Cited Patents: US 4022167; US 4250843; US 4287858 (question) What are these US patents, who do they belong to, and were they existing before Steve Manthey and Advanced Engine Technology applied for patents? I really appreciate your information and would be grateful if you could fill me in on the questions posed. Thanks, Ray Barber