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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : MIDL .... A Real Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (793)	6/17/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: Almost Blue	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7039

I am surprised to read you would rather MIDL issue a new date instead of the May 29, 1998 date. I thought you were doing this with the shareholders (the ones defrauded) best interest in mind? This company issued a press release stating they will pay out a 3:2 split to the owners of record on that date. I did not sell the day after. Did not plan on selling at all until the shit hit the fan. The PR was not a kinda, sorta, maybe, thing. Investors relied on it. Right now my anger and focus is on Fisher, but if they do not honor the May 29, 1998 date, they are going to have more problems. As far as being a shell and the lack of responsibility, individuals actions and no money and yada yada yada, whoever is telling you this is full of it. Criminal acts have been committed here. There is liability the company, the parent company, officers, the board of directors, the transfer agent and so on take on when a press release goes out and is not disputed by them. Their approval was essentially given. Plus Midland attorneys will have to defend the veil between the shell and all of the above. Plus all of the directors and on and on and on. So it is not as simple as a shell and no liability and individual actions. However, in the end, this will probably be a moot point. The split Ps will be valueless shortly. So we may all need to take a different approach. My guess is the TA has huge liability here and you know they have to have E&O. DW