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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hogger who wrote (4117)	9/7/1998 3:51:00 PM
From: s martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

>> You and I can go into town, rent a room, call the management of any company over for a lunch meeting and then when they arrive, we can casually announce that we are conducting a fact finding inquiry into blah, blah, blah.<< That could happen, but given the fact that Sylver is aware that Wellrich is pursuing being paid, why would he go to lunch with them? I think he knew what he was walking into and chose not to participate which does not negate the hearing. Another scenario could be: The hypothesis that fits the description is that Wellrich and AZNT had some sort of a contract. That contract included a clause that any disputes would be resolved by arbitration. However, when Wellrich made a claim against AZNT in arbitration, AZNT refused to participate. In arbitration lingo, they failed to present a defense. It is highly unusual for an arbitrator to "advise and project that a party should get everything that they sued for", but perhaps this is because AZNT failed to present a defense...perhaps their "defense" was just Sylver yelling at Wellrich's attorney or even the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. Let's assume that AZNT was not even represented by counsel, that Sylver was there to represent AZNT. An arbitrator might very well say something like "Mr. Sylver, you have to understand how the arbitration process works. The rules require that you submit an answer, you comply with the discovery process, and you present a defense during the hearing. If you fail to do this, I (if there's a sole arbitrator) or the arbitration panel (if there are 3 or 5 arbitrators) may simply rule against you and award Wellrich everything they have sought. Now, are you going to cooperate or not?" The court order could come about in two ways: 1) because AZNT failed to present a defense, the arbitrator or panel went ahead and ruled against them and DID make their award verbally at the end of the hearing: I/we hereby award damages of $xxxxx against AZNT. That would be followed up with an award in writing; this could take days or weeks to be processed. Assuming the arbitrators made a verbal award, since AZNT would not be expected to pay, Wellrich would go to court to confirm the award, thereby converting the arbitrators' decision into a court order. Now, if AZNT fails to pay pursuant to a court order, they are in deep trouble. 2) the panel may have declined to make such an award, suggesting that Wellrich first go to court to get an order to compel AZNT to proceed with the arbitration. Either scenario makes sense, but given the statement about their having found out that AZNT lost, the first one makes more sense: the arbitrator/panel entered a default judgment and Wellrich is going to court to confirm it. However, the "compel" lingo suggests the second alternative. It could be either, but both make sense. (Courtesy of a lurker familiar with arbitration proceedings)

To: Hogger who wrote (4117)	9/7/1998 3:58:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 26163

Further, I do not consider anyone not owning stock and having capital at risk to have any 'right' to this info, especially if they are attempting to use any possible tool to depress the stock prices and hurt those of us who have invested. I see. You believe that certain crucial information about the company should not be made public. Not gonna attract many new shareholders with this attitude. I am constantly astounded by people who imagine that being a shareholder is equivalent to being a member of an exclusive club: they have more rights than do "others". Reminds me of the story in Reminiscenses of a Stock Operator: a famous trader went to a company and demanded to see the books. The company clerk (this was at the beginning of the century) protested, saying: "Sir! Do you have an active interest in this firm?" The trader replied: "Damn right I do, I'm short 200,000 shares". And: whether the land was a gift or not, if they own it, it's an asset, and needs to be declared in their SEC filings.

To: Hogger who wrote (4117)	9/7/1998 6:02:00 PM
From: jhild	Respond to of 26163

. . . I do not think there is any reason to share this type of information with people who are obviously interested in being basher slasher burner artists. Further, I do not consider anyone not owning stock and having capital at risk to have any 'right' to this info, . . . You guys are a laugh riot. So this then is to be your prolog to now not releasing any copies of this agreement? This is perfect. Heaven knows that if this document is shown to expose a lie, that wouldn't be a good thing. And what about those investors that are short the stock as you have been crowing from the roof of the coop about. Or those that are long the stock? These investors have no rights then in your universe to any information that may expose the character of the company or highlight material misrepresentations? They should be kept in the dark about wrongdoing and misrepresentations? Truly you are disciple of the Hypsters Handbook. What a brazen canard you attempt to abet.