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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PAinvestor who wrote (42146)	1/11/1999 7:22:00 PM
From: Tim McCormick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

PAIN You are full of sh*t. A force majeure/act of God clause is standard contract language. MU may not willfully not meet their targets. You would still have credibility if you admitted your error. Now you are completely discredited. Learn from your mistake. Babble on.

To: PAinvestor who wrote (42146)	1/11/1999 9:12:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

PAinvestor, re: If you read the SEC filing PROPERLY, You will notice that not one of the First Minimum Production Milestone, First Minimum Required Production, First Production Milestone Date, Maximum FGI, Minimum Qualified expenditures etc etc etc have ANY NUMBERS OR DATES FILLED IN. Hmmmmm. This would seem to be one of those cases where you have the actual agreement between the two parties remain confidential and redact certain sensitive parts of whatever is being made public (and hence, available to competitors) for filing purposes. As such, the agreement begins with the following: CONFIDENTIAL CERTAIN INFORMATION HAS BEEN REDACTED. CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUIRED. I'm reading that as implying that the targets exist in the agreement between the two parties, but not in the redacted exhibit included in the filing. As far as the characterization of the agreement as "non-binding", I disagree. If you mean "non-binding" in the sense that the parties have laid out certain situations and/or avenues by which milestones can be postponed, sure. But ultimately, if MU misses a milestone and Intel is not willing to agree to the fact that it fell under certain contingencies spelled out in the doc., they have the right to make a Special Conversion Adjustment which increases the conversion ratio. How aggressive Intel will be if such an ocassion arises, I don't know, but the way I read it the stick (however small) is there along with the carrot. If you wish to confirm this, call Investor Relations at Micron. And then call Investor Relations at Intel <g> Good trading, Tom

To: PAinvestor who wrote (42146)	1/11/1999 9:14:00 PM
From: MileHigh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

You will notice that not one of the First Minimum Production Milestone..................etc etc etc have ANY NUMBERS OR DATES FILLED IN. Hmmmmm. This is for purely competitve reasons, that is, they wish not to show the competition these number,....This is commonplace, but rest assured, the actual papers in the lawyers offices have numbers in those blanks! And I totally disagree that INTC, or anyone company for that matter, would give a company $500M without strings attached....Come on! Regards, MileHigh