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 : Thermo Tech Technologies (TTRIF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (4317)	6/13/1998 2:48:00 PM
From: m jensen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6467

Repost from Yahoo for Zeev Zeev and/or Sheldon : Rene's protein lies. vf500_ (M/Fraser Valley) Jun 13 1998 2:34PM EDT <<snip>> Clement, you are going too far, dry matter does contain water, typically up to 10% moisture in agricultural and feed products. Dry wheat and dry corn typically contains that much water. Gosh, the butter you buy is specifically mixed to contain as close as possible to 10% or so water (or whatever the current regulation might be), because water is cheaper than fat, the producers make sure the product has the maximum amount allowable by the local law. <<snip>> Yes feed has sometimes 12% moisture. That is not the issue at hand. It is how Rene and Thermo Tech USE that moisture to claim protein content is the issue. Rene does not care if the waste has 1000's of pounds of water added in. He only gets better numbers that way. Quoting protein based on dry basis means that you are taking moisture out of the equation. Rene said he uses dry weight only many times, yet he goes on to give the protein content based on the original WET weight. Why? Because by confusing the numbers he can get a waaaaaay exaggerated result! Say there is 10 pounds of grain and it is 10% moisture and 10% protein (wet basis). Now, I'm sure you see that it would contain 1 lb. of protein. Quoted on dry basis, the grain would have 10/90 or 11.1% protein, Zeev. Here's an exxagerated example to get the point across. Rene is saying that if 990 pounds of water was added to that "incoming waste" (the 10 lbs. of grain), he would have 1000 lbs of "waste". Now since he bases his protein claims on the weight of the waste in, Rene is now claiming 100 lbs of protein out of this 10 pounds of true grain that we started with. Does that sound like a valid claim for Rene to be making? This is how he gets his protein claims!! Don't tell me that you accept that as a valid number. 1 lb protein in and 100 lbs protein out!! No wonder his numbers look so terrific, he just picks and chooses what numbers to use and than pleads ignorance when caught. The numbers he uses are real numbers BUT he knows darn well that he is using the numbers in the wrong places!!! Rene DOES NOT compare apples to apples and tries to confuse people (looks to me that he does a good job) and the shareholders eat it up because who wants to question good numbers? Now Zeev about your "the producers make sure the product has the maximum amount (of water)allowable by the local law." Not always the case, we make a product and have won awards with it and if we went to the max. moisture level stated on the package, it would not be as good as it is now. We would rather have a little less of a good product at our lower moisture level than have more of a worse product. ie Yields can be higher because of higher moisture. But that is just us and alot of producers probably only care about quantity, not quality. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes solicitation by me of the purchase or sale of any securities. Investors should be aware that the purchase of securities issued by foreign companies involves certain risks which may not pertain to securities of United States issuers. Not all broker-dealers are able to handle purchase and sale transactions involving foreign securities. Information concerning for securities that is generally available to the public will often be less comprehensive and less reliable. The value of foreign securities is affected by fluctuation in foreign currency exchange rates.The information published is believed to be from reliable sources but cannot be guaranteed. Yahoo! is a trademark of Yahoo! Inc. Copyright c 1994-98 Yahoo! All Rights Reserved.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (4317)	6/14/1998 12:25:00 PM
From: Clement	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6467

To All, In case it was not sufficiently clear, I did not write the last two posts that I put up (and hence the words "repost from Yahoo!" -- and Sheldon, I can assure you that I am quite relaxed). I think Sheldon's and Zeev's comments were best answered by what was reposted by Mike. The following post is my own: FYI -- a newsrelease of IBR's was forwarded to me. It should be noted that while the injunction has been dismissed the lawsuit is still pending. At the same time, it should be noted that it is unusual for a judge to award costs in an injunction application. Should TTRIF pursue this (as I am sure they will) I would suspect that they would have a higher hurdle to overcome given that Justice Rommily noted that TT had failed to establish a fair question to be tried. There are rumours that I have been unable to confirm yet (that I will try to do so earlier on in the day Monday) that make this lawsuit of particular interest to those who have faith in Thermo Tech's technology (of all denominations). I have heard that a past legal dispute (another licensing agreement with Thermo Tech gone sour) allowed IBR rights to the undeveloped technology. IBR developed that technology and has one plant operational (and is already working with GRVD with full contracts as well as other government agencies receiving funding through research grants and cooperation) and as I understand it intends on going public onto the Vancouver Stock Exchange, subsequently listing on the TSE. There is speculation that the IBR technology is a superior one because of the heat that the microbes produce in the process, the ability of it to thermophillically digest through and process materials (including toxins such as PCB's), and it has been able to operate at high levels of acidity -- using a true and complete thermophillic process. Thus the natural extension, of one who is suspicious of Thermo Tech (such as myself), is that Thermo Tech is using legal tactics to stall IBR from coming to market -- competing with TTRIF head to head -- for both waste and money. IBR in comparison to TTRIF has an untainted past and should it have a superior process, is a serious threat to Thermo Tech. If true, Thermo Tech has much to lose -- and by extension Trooper as a holder of the license agreement. I also talked to TTRIF IR today talking only of this particular matter. I was forwarded an "internal memorandum" (I highly doubt that it was ever meant to be "internal"). Take out the rhetoric and you get basically that TTRIF intends to pursue this lawsuit to its fullest despite its initial setbacks. The "internal" memorandum is as follows (after the IBR Newsrelease): ************************************* According to a recent IBR Newsrelease: Thermo Tech unsucessfully attempted to obtain an ex-parte injunction against International Bio-Recovery Corporation and Mr. Fehr. Subsequently on an application heard on June 10, 1998, the Honourable Mr. Justice Romilly of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the Thermo Tech injunction application in all respects and awarded costs to IBR, Mr. Fehr, Essex Group Consulting Inc. Mr. Justice Rommily held that TT had failed to establish a fair question to be tried. ************************************* Thermo TechTM Technologies, Inc. Office of the General Counsel Internal Memorandum To: Rene J. Branconnier From: L. B. Liebowitz Re: IBR/Fehr Litigation Date: June 11, 1998 As you know, we filed suit yesterday for damages against IBR & Dale Fehr for breach by them of Fehr's confidentiality agreement with Thermo TechTM. Our whole point, of course, has been to demonstrate to the world that we do not take lightly the proprietary nature of our processes, technology, and plants; nor do we take lightly the commitment of our people to protect that proprietary know-how, which really constitutes the principle asset of the Company. Our lawsuit seeks damages for loss of our confidential information, and recovery of any profits that IBR may realize from using our know-how or data. That lawsuit is alive and well, now only 3 days old. In addition to filing our lawsuit, however, we made a special, and rarely granted, application for an injunction from the start of the case, even before we had brought any pretrial evidence to the court. This application, but not any part of the regular lawsuit was denied yesterday by the Court, with the comment that an injunction here on only the second day of the lawsuit was "premature." We will bring an application for an interim injunction back to the court later, after pretrial discovery, particularly the testimony under oath of Fehr and his new employers, has been taken and the details of the breach and our damages are developed. then our application for injunctive relief will not be premature and can be considered on its merits. Meanwhile, of course, our main lawsuit for damages and a post-trial injunction remain, having only just been filed. We intend to pursue this pending lawsuit vigorously to conclusion after trial. We will continue to make it known that our agenda of protecting our intellectual property rights -- and this lawsuit is of course only one item on that agenda -- will proceed full speed ahead.