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.

Technology Stocks : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Dawson who wrote (18461)	10/10/1998 2:05:00 AM
From: Ken Richard	Respond to of 29386

(These limitations may be waived upon 61 days notice to the Company). When you posted this, I expected to read that the COMPANY may waive the limitation (5%) upon 61 days notice. This makes NO sense whatsover. It seems to me that it is the COMPANY's right to limit the conversion to 5%, and that that COMPANY may waive this provision (limitation). The way this is written, HOW CAN, OR WHY SHOULD THE HOLDERS WANT TO HAVE ANY LIMITATION ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN CONVERT IN THE FIRST PLACE, IE, there IS NO LIMITATION if the HOLDER has the unfettered right to waive it! How does the company benefit from the holders converting? It doesn't. So how can the right to unlimited conversion lie WITH THE HOLDERS ?!? The limitation, under this interpretation, is meaningless, if the holders have the power to waive it.... This makes no sense at all ... Under this theory, couldn't that take a majority interest in the company by converting at penny level prices ? That cannot be the case. It seems that is what the 5% limitation is all about. It seems that the limitation language should read: ((These limitations may be waived upon 61 days notice BY (not to) the Company). What gives ?

To: George Dawson who wrote (18461)	10/10/1998 2:11:00 AM
From: Eleder2020	Respond to of 29386

George- The Hayes Story was interesting and if you ask me these Reg D investors seem to engage in their own form of stock manipulation. Illegal? Hayes seemed to just put his foot down and just stopped issuing shares for the converters, believing he was decieved(manipulated?). I think Ancor is on much more solid ground due to the fact they are in a growing market in an emerging technology as opposed to a matured one(which Hayes was in), borrowed allot less then Hayes and I think they have an excellent sales and management team to get them back on track. George-any estimates on where you think the total number of shares stand.