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 (2157)	7/9/1998 2:08:00 PM
From: Binder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7039

You have a good point Daniel. But in my opinion, what you have to remember is that competent and legal are not synonymous. Even if the board members should have known, which is questionable at best, one would still have to prove intent. It is not illegal to be incompetent. (Besides, if one wanted to drag competence into this, you can count on extending any action for a long time, because you have to prove incompetence. And if the board is found incompetent, that could release them from consequence..yadda yadda...a can of worms I don't think any of us wants to open.) I agree, the company should have been among the last to be snowed by Fisher, rather than among the first. However, regardless of what order they were in, the company was boinked nonetheless. Along those lines, Dan, you could say that it is the fault of each individual shareholder for not having done whatever they could to weigh the risk before they invested, (after all, Gary has never been privy to any inside info that was not available to all of us...he just took the time to gather it) which is equally preposterous. I never said that the shareholders were not wronged, and I never said that everyone at Midland is squeaky clean, because I don't think any of us believe that. What I am saying is that any action brought against the company and/or its shareholders would be extremely difficult to win, and even harder to collect. If it makes someone feel vindicated to go pay a lawyer to fight an ultimately losing battle, they are certainly within their rights to do so. The American legal system guarantees that. However, if they are going to do it, I would hope that they were equally prepared to lose. I would hate to see someone sue the shareholders, lose, and then have to pick up legal expenses and fees for both sides, thus increasing their existing loss. Kind of like throwing good money after bad. I have more lucrative things to devote my time and money to. Just my opinion, :-) Binder

To: Almost Blue who wrote (2157)	7/9/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7039

For example, the fact that there were problems with the patents? No one knew there were problems with the patenets (didn't someone here on SI find that out on the internet? Well I have a faxed copy from a shareholder of patents that McAndrews sent to him but I never got. Bill is the one after all this broke that discovered the patent problem after talking to Ewert. Who never returned my calls. Was Gary ever privileged to read all the patent information, deal structure and all the DD at the office of Midland? Nope I did however get the patent numbers which I posted Did he sit in on all the meetings to put the deal together? Nope 1. The plant was being built (ie photos on web site). Yep it is on the drawing table at Maverick Engineering those photos are existing equipment in Kentucky 2. Exxon was actually testing DF144. (ie press release and no dispute by Exxon) Nope Exxon request to test DF-144 to date they have no samples I am aware of. 3. The merger or acquisition was completed. Nope no 8K nor audit filings nor shareholder call nor shareholder meeting 4. The patents were in place. That was what was presented in the DD pcakage and finacials at time of acquistion which on June 1998 if was discovered the patents were not there. 5. Plus all the other obvious BS from Fisher. Yes that is a fact GB