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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JJB who wrote (5807)	7/21/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6735

Thanks for the link JJB: <<Also, the complaint claims that Solv-Ex failed to disclose to shareholders that the company issued 3 million shares of stock to Rendall for the purpose of obtaining financing for the company. Because of that, Solv-Ex understated the number of its issued and outstanding shares, the complaint states. >> I wonder if these are the margined shares that ML sold? The stuff regarding the oil sands is old news, IMO. The SEC does not seem to be alleging anything that many didn't already think or believe long ago. Interestingly, the SEC does not seem to be claiming, based on that news article, that the extraction technology is technologically flawed or patently worthless, just that there was no basis to claim commercial viability: again, IMO, no real surprise. The net effect may be the same though. (Caveat: it is hard to know how accurate or thorough the news article was). The alumina stuff seems to be new.....does anyone have any info on whether the 1996 test failed? How, if at all, does or will this affect the "memos of understanding?" It wouldn't surprise me if this suit delayed resolution of the bankruptcy. In any event, it looks like Solv will get to spend some, if not a significant portion, of it existing capital defending this lawsuit. I would also bet that Solv (and thus the shareholders) get to pick up the tab for defending JR and HC as well. How about this for a (somewhat tongue in cheek) settlement: JR and HC give all of the existing shareholders all of their stock in Solv, agree not to take any more until Solv at least begins producing revenue, or, even better, begins making a profit, and get no more than a nominal fixed salary....maybe its time for them to truly work FOR the shareholders and not for the company, which they may currently think is the same as working for themselves. There are more than 100 million reasons that this is a good idea. Troy

To: JJB who wrote (5807)	8/6/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Gary L Schultz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

JJB, More specifically, the last paragraph from abqjournal.com >>>Also, the complaint claims that Solv-Ex failed to disclose to shareholders that the company issued 3 million shares of stock to Rendall for the purpose of obtaining financing for the company. Because of that, Solv-Ex understated the number of its issued and outstanding shares, the complaint states.<<< Read - "SOLV-EX failed to disclose...". Were the shares registered with the SEC, or were they simply printed up and sold? Regardless of which one, SOLV, aka JR, broke the law by not including the shares in the total outstanding float. I believe that it will be shown that these shares were not registered, and were created and sold illegally. If not, then I'll just crawl into my hole a little deeper. Regards, Gary