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 : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bmart who wrote (51641)	8/17/1998 4:59:00 PM
From: bmart	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

continuing........ ......." (a) C.E.A. LINES, INC. On November 7, 1994, the Company entered into an agreement, which was amended on January 1, 1995, with Central European Subholding Inc. to purchase 50.1% of the common stock in C.E.A. Lines, Inc. ("CEA"). In connection with this transaction 3,000,000 shares of common stock (prior to the 1 for 10 reverse split - see Note 6) were issued. CEA became a majority owned subsidiary of the Company. CEA's principal asset was an ocean shipping vessel and its main activity was providing freight services. CEA was organized under the laws of the Turks & Caicos Islands, British West Indies. On September 20, 1995, the Company entered into another agreement with Central European Subholding, Inc. for the purchase of the remaining 49.9% of the stock of CEA. Under the terms of this agreement the Company received 100% of the stock of CEA Traders, a wholly owned subsidiary of CEA. In connection with this transaction 400,000 shares of common stock were issued. The shares were valued by the Company at $2,000,000. The purchase price was allocated to property, plant and equipment ($1,454,269) and minority interest ($545,731). The CEA acquisition was a related party transaction. Current management has been unable to determine whether the acquisition was made at "arms length" and therefore whether amounts recorded in the financial statements properly reflect the fair values of the assets acquired. On January 8, 1996 the Company's chief executive officer resigned. Since his resignation the Company has had several chief executive officer's. Current management joined the Company on July 15, 1996. Current management has had communications with the officer that resigned to compel him to return the following to the Company: (1) the assets of CEA (including the ocean shipping vessel), (ii) the books and records of CEA, and (iii) the books and records of the Company from inception through December 31, 1995. To date, current management has been unable to reach an agreement with the former chief executive for the return of the above. Management is currently investigating its legal options, but believes that it may not be practicable or economically reasonable to further pursue this matter. ________________________________________________ ........"Pending the conclusion of its investigation, management has instructed the Company's transfer agent to stop the transfer of the 400,000 common shares issued in the second CEA transaction. Additionally, since the Company is unable to secure the assets of CEA, management has determined that the Company's investment in CEA which amounted to $3,354,068 should be and was written off as of June 30, 1996................." RB

To: bmart who wrote (51641)	8/17/1998 5:06:00 PM
From: Rich_1	Respond to of 55532

BMart, you are right about Tod Paully (Tonto). He has, and always will, post doom and gloom as long as the short squeeze is still alive and well. Mr. tonto is glued to this thread for a reason. We all know that he does not have a long interest. Also, there are many other BB stocks out there in which shareholders have been given the shaft and Mr. tonto chooses not to involve himself. I too would not involve myself in investments which I hold no stake in. Therefore, it has always been obvious to us shareholders that Mr. Tonto is just here in defense of that short position. That article was a joke to those familiar with Mr. Tonto's tactics and its ashame that the story is so one sided. Rich_1