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: Charles A. King who wrote (10086)	11/8/1998 9:21:00 AM
From: Robert Meany	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13091

For us to see a rise in price, we need to get back on BB which will require some filings by Bill and his crew. Once this takes place, I am sure there will be plenty of MM's ready to take our money, and we should see some increase in price of the stock. If another deal is reached, we could see some real movement. This will all have to be factored in with the convert preferred, which we still need some more information to make a rational estimate. The future indeed looks bright again for GRNO. Nose to the wind OKIE BOY! Bob

To: Charles A. King who wrote (10086)	11/8/1998 11:08:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 13091

Charles, you may be absolutely right, but as the public statements of the company stands right now, we do not know. My opinion is that BC should publish the exact conversion conditions, if he does not, the stock may remained "floored" because of the uncertainty and the possibility that it is floorless. Just make it clear. One PM even suggested that the conversion is one for one (namely one share of common for one share of preferred), if it is so, it is a fantastic deal, since it value current common s at at least a buck. But I cannot rely on PM's information nor should you and any one considering adding to their position here. We need the facts, and if we do not want a repeat of last year's fiasco, these facts should come out and soon. Zeev

To: Charles A. King who wrote (10086)	11/9/1998 3:05:00 AM
From: Norman H. Hostetler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13091

Charles, Martin, Zeev, and all: I have not seen the specifics on "Class B Preferred," which is a different series from the earlier Preferred being sold to individuals, but I will be surprised if these shares don't meet the following criteria: 1) 144 restricted stock, so nothing can be done with it for a year; 2) a conversion ratio to common of 1:1 at any time; and 3) a fairly high preferred dividend or interest (depending on its form) to compensate the holder for sitting on it. What I'm not able to guess is whether there is a set termination date with an automatic conversion. The original press release noted that the joint venture would be owned 50-50 by the two corporations. Such a joint venture would normally not be a stock company, but more like a partnership (based on numerous other joint ventures described for companies whose stock I follow). As such, there could not be any public market for pieces of the joint venture because the partnership "units" are indivisible. Charles, the hi-tech part of GRNO's plants lies in the core computer program and controls. Once these things are fully operational, they virtually run themselves, making instant adjustments to any slight variance in internal conditions. Only start-up and shut-down, and major external forces of nature (or whatever) require human intervention. The machine can even monitor its own wear and tear and schedule its maintenance needs. As such, it becomes a demonstration of how computerization of technology can lead to more effective and efficient performance of complex machinery. And don't forget that it helps China by reducing a major environmental air, ground, and water pollutant by transforming it into a needed, value-added product, and does this through a patented process. That would seem to me to meet the definition, though GRNO certainly isn't going to compete with Lucent in churning out who knows how many new patents and products every year. Pete once told me that they were intending to build hi-tech machines with sufficient sophistication and simplicity that they can be run by lo-tech operators. I can't imagine that anyone in China supposes that all its laboring force will be hi-tech. Like you, I suspect that there will be one or two R&D people hanging around somewhere, and that research will be shared between the JtVen and its two owners (ie, new improvements developed in Charleston will go to China, too). As to who writes contracts for GRNO, you can bet it's lawyers. After the last year and a half, Bill wouldn't dare put own a press release unless both it and any documents referred to had gone through legal review. And probably only lawyers with serious SEC credentials, not just people who claim to be knowledgeable. Also, Bill said he wasn't going to say anything public about "sales"--and I suppose joint ventures--unless he had the contracted deposit payment in hand. So I take it as safe that the $100,000 has been received in Charleston. As an addendum, Bill told me over 20 months ago, when I inquired about currency risk in foreign sales, that all contracts would be denominated in dollars and require payments in dollars, so there would be no currency risk for GRNO. Finally, though I am one of the people who has been sent an "official" copy of the GRNO/SEC consent decree which, in effect, says that I cannot publicly dispute or contradict the SEC findings acknowledged and agreed to in that decree, I will say that, based on the 200 or so statements of "fact," interpretations, and accusations made in their initial filing (most of which are not relevant to the GRNO decree), I am appalled at the sloppiness of the work, which almost succeeds in making Jon Anderson look competent by comparison (and I have had some personal experiences regarding his "non-quality" work for GRNO). I recognize that no person or organization makes correct decisions all of the time, but the waste of federal (read: taxpayer) resources in creating that document goes far beyond the normal slippage one expects to see occasionally. I'm not a lawyer, but I am an expert in reading fiction, and most of the narrative that tries to construct the meaning of the "facts," etc., has far more to do with my area of specialization than with a lawyer's. =+=+=Norm