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: Almost Blue who wrote (2151)	7/9/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: Binder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7039

LOL...you asked, so here is my take: 1) Spriggs - It is my opinion that Spriggs would have had to have known of the condition of the patents. Did he have a duty to say something? Well, in my opinion, yes, he did have a duty, and that duty was breached. Anyone who knew Arcon didn't hold the patents had an obligation to make that fact known. Where I think people are missing the boat is that they are not making the separation between Midland and Arcon. It is difficult, I know, because for so long they (Fisher & Co) wanted us to think of the two companies as one, but since the acquisition was never finalized, they never were "one", so they must be addressed distinctly. 2) Did the Midland Board have an obligation to correct Fisher's PR? To me, it is perfectly believable that the Arcon people "snowed" the Midland people. In other words, it seems reasonable that the Midland people would have had no way of knowing that he was defrauding until it was done. How were they to know that it was false? He was telling them the same stuff he was telling all of us. You cannot hold someone responsible for not telling something they were not expected to know in the first place. Once Gary went to the Board with evidence that Fisher was not on the up and up, they acted immediately. The only problem was, Fisher had already fled. So, the Board went to Spriggs, told him to put up audited assets, or shut up, and for whatever reason, he couldn't. So, the deal was rescinded, action against Fisher initiated, and here we all are. In that perspective, I agree 100% with Gary's assesment that the Board of Midland acted appropriately. Fisher, Spriggs, and the rest of the Arcon people, however, are quite a different story. :-) Binder

To: Almost Blue who wrote (2151)	7/9/1998 12:48:00 PM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7039

Sorry I have been busy this morning ... I will ask you a question ... How could one expect Hilary to say Bill was doing Monica when she had no knowledge and she was the one being wronged. Midland is a seperate corporation with a seperate charter than Arcon. Now there were two boards. Midland didn't know until they had proof or even enough evidence to doubt anyone or anything. Once they did Midland took appropiate and immediate actions. As far as John Spriggs I cannot answer that you have to ask him and if he says no then you have to prove he did. Burden of proof is a requirement under the laws the we by. What is the old saying just because you say it with conviction does not make true or a fact. GB

To: Almost Blue who wrote (2151)	7/9/1998 1:16:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7039

I'm not so sure. "All that said, it looks like the only upside I have left in this deal is watching Fisher pay for what he has done." Isn't he accused of selling stock when it was at a price many multiples over what it is now. He could be buying back stock at a dirt cheap price to cover right now. So when the stock etc. recovered from him, doesn't he still recoup a huge profit. Perhaps he even had this factored in. He will be forgiven when things are returned, although not in their previously valued condition. For example, I'm holding W's. Gary said yesterday that he doesn't see how W holders qualify for didly squat. I'm just wondering, couldn't df cover and walk with a nice net. brees