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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (12574)	8/10/1998 11:19:00 PM
From: poodle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

Class Action Suit Filed Against Amgen Inc. and Its Officers Alleging Misrepresentations, False Financial Statements and Insider Trading Business Wire - August 10, 1998 20:09 SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 10, 1998--A securities class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") (NASDAQ:AMGN) common stock during the period January 23, 1997 to August 11, 1997 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Amgen and certain of its officers with violations of the securities laws. The complaint alleges that Amgen and several of its senior executives issued false statements between January 23, 1997 and August 11, 1997 regarding: (i) the demand for and sales growth of Amgen's two flagship products, Epogen and Neupogen, blockbuster billion-dollar drugs that had made Amgen a successful biotech company and enabled it to report strong earnings per share ("EPS") growth in the past; (ii) an arbitration proceeding between Amgen and Johnson & Johnson regarding entitlement to millions of dollars in "spill-over" sales of Epogen; and (iii) Amgen's 4thQ 1996 and 1stQ and 2ndQ 1997 results. These positive representations, financial statements and forecasts were false and artificially inflated Amgen's stock from $52-1/2 in mid- January 1997 to $69-3/8 in May 1997 and kept it trading at more than $58 per share through the end of the Class Period, enabling (i) top Amgen executives to sell 525,595 shares of their Amgen stock, 40 percent - 98 percent of their individual and 62 percent of their collective stock ownership, for $32.4 million in proceeds; and (ii) Amgen to avoid a huge loss of up to $158 million on speculative put option contracts on Amgen stock, which would have been triggered had Amgen's stock fallen below $58 when those put options expired in early August 1997.

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (12574)	8/11/1998 8:48:00 AM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

Despite market drop today there is one: GUIDANT say buy InControl for more than $135M Guidant pays $6/share in cash, sees one-time charge of $90 M, sees deal excluding one-time charge not dilutive. Maybe GDT will earn a "short watch" instead of. By occasion, i did the following yesterday: Message 5459659 Christian

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (12574)	8/12/1998 11:39:00 PM
From: S Shaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

Roger: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you but have not been able to log on to SI for two days. As for Avon, even though contract law is not my strong suit, I will give you my read on it. It's the old maxim, offer, acceptance, and consideration and you have a contract. Avon makes an offer to which a number of people responded by signing up new sales people. Acceptance of an offer does not have to be in writing, it can be by action that shows an intent to accept. As you know, sharp lawyers will put a time limit on a contract and let the parties draft renewals. In this instance, it sounds like the company unilaterally terminated the contract. You can do that if you feel like paying damages. Therefore, my gut reaction is that on those facts, they could well have to pay off down the line. As an aside, if my memory serves me correct, Bill Wexler picked Avon as a short a while back. One last thought, as you know, some corporations deliberately breach a bad contract hoping that they can settle a lawsuit cheaper than they can honor a contract. I am not saying that this is the case here, but I have seen that type of conduct in the real world. Best regards, Scott