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 : Green Oasis Environmental, Inc. (GRNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Fuller who wrote (9812)	8/31/1998 8:45:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13091

Bill, The G&S case is being handled on contingency thus implying that a group of attorneys feel there is enough merit to the case to pay the costs themselves. As for insurance companies... they certainly don't wish to wait until they have a judgement held against them. And the longer they wait to settle, the mor What this case also may achieve through precedent is a purging of non-qualified corporate securities attorneys, possibly making positions available for certain qualified parties in gov't employ. And John Anderson was required to do the paperwork for Bill & MaryAnn, (failed to do the Form 4's, remember?). Both of them were corporate officers. And given that he registered some of BC's stock for sale subsequent to the initial SEC inquiry, a truely qualified Securities attorney would have realized that those sales were illegal and unethical based upon the knowledge of SEC scrutiny of the company and were tantamount to selling on derogatory insider information. JMO. amd I'm omly expressing an opinion of case against G&S based upon the facts as presented to me. Regards, Ron

To: Bill Fuller who wrote (9812)	8/31/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: R KIEFHABER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13091

"loss to GRNO stockholders" Is there a possibility that GRNO stockholders of record at time of the trading halt would have grounds for a class action against G & S. Assuming of course that they were found negligent. Regards, BOB K

To: Bill Fuller who wrote (9812)	8/31/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Norman H. Hostetler	Respond to of 13091

Bill, some comments on your interpretation of the lawsuit against Gambrell & Stoltz (all the following are my interpretations of public information, except in the case of two instances where I specify otherwise; I have no knowledge of the specific claims and data that lie behind the complaint filed in the Charleston District Court): 1. The depressed stock price has seriously hurt GRNO by depriving the company of the capital they expected from the exercise of warrants and options that have or will expire worthless, and by making it impossible to register and sell treasury stock without creating massive dilution. 2. The SEC actions and the depressed stock price certainly caused the cancellation of the contract to purchase the Commerce City, CO, waste oil collector, which was to be paid for primarily by newly issued stock, and install plants at that site. The potential revenue losses are substantial, particularly when you include the leveraging effects from the investment of free cash flow into further sites. 3. I don't know the specific reasons other agreements failed, except that in some cases particular other events also contributed (such as the internal reorganization at Evans Systems), but the SEC action would naturally cause any prospective purchaser to pull back, and there may well be explicit evidence about other entities not following through because of the SEC action (strictly hypothetical example: suppose Citicorp provided a deposition to this effect). I presume that the various law firms working on this case since the summer of 1997 haven't put it together without massive amounts of confirming, and I hope convincing, data. I was told once that, at some level (South Carolina law, if I remember correctly), one law firm cannot be involved in suing another law firm without at least one opinion from a disinterested expert affirming probable cause. Hence the deposition from Jones. Other evidence comes out in discovery, court hearings, etc. 4. I doubt there was any attempt to negotiate with Andersen, Gambrell & Stoltz, or their unknown malpractice insurance company, prior to filing the court case. For example, Jones was not deposed until August 24, 1998. So the fact of the filing presumably does not indicate in any way the response of the defendents to the allegations of the plaintiffs. 5. I once asked Bill Carraway about the handling of GRNO's and his legal bills, and was told that there is a careful and strict accounting, overseen by the two entirely different legal committees representing GRNO and Bill & his family, and that at no time since the dismissal of Andersen as corporate attorney in May of 1997 has any GRNO money been spent on defending his actions as an individual (as opposed to his actions as an officer and director of the company, which are covered in the GRNO consent decree). The SEC complaints clearly attribute the alleged fraud to the individuals involved, and not to the company, for example. I admit to a bias in favor of GRNO and Bill (my pocketbook is involved)--I note that it became harder and harder for Charles to keep his opinions out of his summaries as he cranked them out!--but I think the intent of both of us is to apply rational processes to known information in order to develop the most likely explanations. So in the spirit of fair play, I will point out one place where Bill's personal attornies made a mistake: paragraph 160 of the SEC complaint alleges that "By mid June 1998, Green Oasis was trading between $.25 and $.50 per share." Bill's response states "Denied; it traded at $2-1/2 to $3 in mid-June, 1997." =+=+=Norm

To: Bill Fuller who wrote (9812)	8/31/1998 2:38:00 PM
From: Charles A. King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13091

"And it's not clear what the damages are to GRNO - G&S's client - certainly not the loss in market value" If that represents the strategic basis for the defense of G&S, then it is doomed to fail. If the insurance company chooses to stiff its client G&S on that basis, it leaves itself open to future long term liability and I don't think it would want that on its record. This country is over run with lawyers, but lawyer insurance isn't the mass market like home and auto insurance is. That defense does not bear scrutiny in terms of practical logic and the large collection of tort lawyers involved in this seems to agree with me. The drop in the price of the stock represents real damage to GRNO and through that to the stockholders. The purpose of GRNO and the Carraways selling stock was to raise capital which was mostly put back into GRNO to fund its interests and operations. The price of the stock was crucial to GRNO's future. For example, a deal to buy a waste oil collector in Denver was based on the price of the stock. Processing waste oil is where the real long term profit lies. When the stock suddenly lost its value, the deal was called off and that is an example of how the loss of stock value has damaged GRNO. I also take strong exception to your term "sham deals". You can't apply today's conditions to those of 1 1/2 years ago. Then $1 million in cash, now large negative position. The price of oil is 20 some cents less a gallon now than it was then which would go directly to a plant's bottom line. These conditions make GRNO deals appear much more risky now than they were then. True, it wasn't stated that executions of deals were contingent on all details of the Charleston plant's design being finished, but the basic proprietary technology was known to work and all that needed to be finished were the peripherals. These could have been swapped or added as the plants were installed. I can't speak for all the prospective deals that were announced by GRNO, but I know the Research Fuels fell through when it was found that the technology of the process it was to be used for didn't work. That had nothing to do with GRNO's technology. I can't speak for Evans Systems or Midwest Fuels but I have reason to believe they were serious at the time as well. You can't hold Bill Carraway accountable for the drop in the price of oil which has contributed to the destabilization of some economies, countries, and governments. And you can't hold him solely responsible for the royal screwing GRNO has taken by the legal system with all its high priced lawyers and government bureaucrats. The behavior of South Carolina's DHEC was something to behold and cost us a large amount of money for no purpose. Sure, "regulating in hindsight", he should have moved GRNO to Texas in 1994, but that is water over the dam. He was led to believe the bureaucracy of SC would not be a problem. Just as in the other disasters, he relied on the advice of paid consultants throughout, and while that responsibility flows to GRNO and Bill under the theory of Respondeat Superior, why would anybody pay all those consultants if they don't act on their advice? "And while drawing hundreds of thousands of dollars from GRNO to pay his personal legal fees," Well, that was a dangerous thing to say. Is that statement something you can prove? As far as I know, GRNO has no income of its own yet and must rely on Bill finding the cash to put into GRNO to keep it open for business. The money he must pay lawyers to defend himself and his wife is drawn away from supporting GRNO's operations and never belonged to GRNO in the first place. The cost of all these lawyers and other consultants over the years is what has drained the life out of GRNO, and Bill is the one keeping it alive. And as far as hiring new sets of lawyers for personal service to the Carraways rather than relying of G&S's advice to GRNO which has been Bill's life for the last several years, all I can say is read the previous sentence again. Charles