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: Shawn Springer who wrote (860)	6/17/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: Greg C	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7039

Shawn The only thing MIDL has to offer anyone now is an easy way to become Public quickly They have a shell and a stock structure, but they also have a history, and IMO that history will take a while to fade in the eyes of current holders and any new investors. I can bet that if a new company does come in, current holders will sell at first opportunity just to be out and move on. JMO If I wasn't already in this one I sure as heck wouldn't touch it in the future! FACT

To: Shawn Springer who wrote (860)	6/17/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Binder	Respond to of 7039

<The only thing MIDL has to offer anyone now is an easy way to become Public quickly> I can only offer you my own personal experience here. We (meaning my family) have been "toying" with the idea of taking our company public for the past 2-3 years. The intent is to raise capital for a couple of spin-off projects, and to finance the development of a new division within our industry (Construction/Real Estate Dev.). We have consulted with a couple of firms, and very briefly with an attorney who specializes in this regarding the concept, and from what we have discovered, a reverse merger into an existing shell is BY FAR the easiest and cheapest way to do it. You can negotiate the cost to your company with the shell. If you want a grandiose introduction into the market, this is probably not the way to go. However, for companies simply wanting to accomplish their goals and concentrate on the business of the company, it is, in my opinion the only way to go. The point that I am trying to make is that I don't think you should discount the value an empty shell has to offer. It is an excellent tool for an up and coming company to prove itself to be a diamond in the rough. I think it is important that Spriggs, Fisher, Arcon, and DF-144 be considered "non-entities" as far as Midland is concerned. Unless or until Spriggs gets his stuff together, they are no longer a factor in the future performance of this company. At the present time, the only likely consequence of these events would be legal fees. However, (and this is IMPORTANT) Midland would be on the Plaintiff end of any action, and not necessarily the Defendant end. (I say this because the wronged parties here ARE the shareholders of Midland, and if legal action were brought, we would essentially be suing ourselves.) Therefore, the shareholders and/or BOD would be able to set the limit on legal fees...in other words, decide when enough is enough, and whether or not the pursuit of recovery is worth the expense. Since the marriage of MIDL and Arcon was never consumated, it has been nullified. Therefore, the Arcon BOD would have had to remain intact, with Fisher as chairman. There was NEVER an OFFICIAL merger because the SHAREHOLDERS NEVER VOTED ON IT. Arcon was the one who misrepresented itself to MIDL. Arcon is where the buck stops. I am not an attorney, and this is just my opinion. However, I do have a strong background in contract law and legal liability issues. :-) Binder