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 : American International Industries Inc. OTC BB Symbol EDII -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Currency who wrote (1115)	7/16/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: SI Bob	Respond to of 4814

Effective immediately, trial members can not post to this thread. Any trial member who will make quality contributions may email me at mailto:si_admin@techstocks.com and I'll consider granting exclusions to the trial member block on a case by case basis. Regards, SI Admin (Bob)

To: Currency who wrote (1115)	7/16/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 4814

Say what ever these hecklers can about Danny Dror and some of the supposed businesses that have failed...and they even tout company failures after he left as his fault....one thing is certain...Danny DRor is not a hypster...he has been in PR since 1983 and if he wanted to hype the stock and EDII he sure would know how to do it. Rather, he chooses to let his business actions speak for themselves at EDII. I have not seen any hype in the press releases to date, and the statements made in them have been verified by various investors who have contributed to this thread. Some have even personally visited the areas in question and given a field report, all positive. These supposed poor business failings are past history, so far, Danny Dror has shown me nothing but positive growth of a company...and at neck breaking speed. I will leave my money in EDII and watch it grow along with the company.

To: Currency who wrote (1115)	7/16/1998 11:42:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4814

Um. Here's an interesting story from MicroTel's proxy statement of 10 June 1996. www4.edgar-online.com There's the usual stuff about executives, directors, and beneficial ownership, which I shall skip. Dror was CEO and Chairman at the time, and also the largest beneficial owner. Then there's an explanation of the necessity for a reverse split, which was in fact accomplished on 15 August. A clever twist here: common reversed, as always, and authorized shares remained the same. BUT at the same time the company asked shareholders to authorize the "blank check" issuance of up to 10 million shares of preferred. No preferred existed at the time, so any that would subsequently be issued would not be affected by the split... And then we come to the resignation of the company's former outside auditors, Deloitte & Touche: PROPOSAL NO. 4 RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF ACCOUNTANTS FOR THE COMPANY The independent certified public accountants for the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1994 were Deloitte & Touche resigned as the Company's public accountant on December 22, 1994. Deloitte & Touche's formal resignation memorializes the Company's and Deloitte & Touche's discussions that they mutually agreed that their auditor-client relationship would cease. Contemporaneously, the Board of Directors took steps to engage BDO Seidman to act as the Company's principal accountant. The reports of Deloitte on the financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 contained an emphasis paragraph that the financial statements and financial statement schedules were prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. The 1993 auditor's report stated that the Company's recurring losses from operations and its noncompliance with debt covenants raised substantial doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern. The 1994 report stated that the Company's declining revenues and recurring losses from operations raised substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The 1994 report also included an emphasis paragraph describing certain amendments to the Common Stock Purchase Agreement between the Company, and Daniel Dror & Co. ("DDC"), and designees. These amendments resulted from certain transaction (i) between the Company and DDC and designees, and (ii) initiated by Daniel Dror as Chairman of the Company's investment committee, which were rescinded, amended or voided at various dates during the subsequent interim period to the fiscal June 30, 1994 year end. The decision to change accountants was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company, including the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. 13 During the Company's two most recent fiscal years and subsequent interim periods preceding the cessation of the relationship between the Company and Deloitte there were no disagreements with Deloitte on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure. However, Deloitte believes that there is reportable event under Regulation S-K Item 304(a)(1)(v) which requires disclosure. On November 18, 1994 Deloitte advised the Company that it believed that significant transactions executed by individual Board members or executive officers prior to the Board of Directors deliberation and approval or without safeguards such as shared responsibilities, results in a material weakness in the Company's internal control structure and potentially exposes the Company to material loss of assets or assumption of liability. Deloitte advised that the Company should institute procedures to insure that the Board of Directors approved significant transactions before they are consummated or there is a prior approved guideline addressing the transaction. In its November 18, 1994 letter, Deloitte added that such control procedures will enhance effective corporate governance and insure that the Company's assets and resources are adequately safeguarded. The Company does not believe that Deloitte's November 18, 1994 advice to the Company was an event described in Item 304(a)(1)(v)(A) or (B) in that, in management's opinion, Deloitte's November 18, 1994 letter does not address the existence of those events, i.e., Deloitte has never advised the Company that the internal controls necessary to develop reliable financial statements do not exist or that information has come to Deloitte's attention that has made it unwilling to be associated with the financial statements prepared by management..