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 : Liteglow (LTGL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jebj who wrote (4066)	2/9/1999 9:53:00 PM
From: DJ Byrne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4715

As anyone contacted the SEC on this matter, if not, I would be happy to do so. As usual though the more complaints the better. dj

To: jebj who wrote (4066)	2/9/1999 10:54:00 PM
From: AriKirA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4715

Question - if one has a reverse split without also reducing the number of shares authorized and then starts to - again - sell more shares, is that not selling the same shares they had already sold before? jebj, when a company engages in a reverse stock split, it substitutes one share of stock for a predetermined amount of shares of stock, thus reducing the number of shares outstanding. As a result, after the reverse split, the company at hand will have a fraction of the shares outstanding. Therefore, if the company does not reduce the number of shares authorized, they will legally be authorized to issue more paper until they reach said number. In this regard, the following excerpt might be of interest to all: There has been some academic research on reverse stock splits which indicates that NYSE and AMEX listed companies that reverse split their stock do not perform well subsequent to the split. This may be so because many times a listed company on an exchange which has to reverse split its stock to do what the market won't do, is not in good shape. In the case at hand, management is trying to boost the share price into a range that will allow them to issue more and more shares! Since Liteglow is incorporated under the Nevada Business Corporations Act, there is not much we can do about it. Sadly, said act is one of the worst acts when it comes to remedies in shareholder oppression. *And if that is fraud would not the States Attorney of the State of Florida be interested? As maybe the SEC?* Since it is a Nevada Corporation, the Florida State Attorney General will not intervene unless there is a criminal investigation. As to the SEC, they have bigger fishes to run after (I'm sure you understand what I mean) *Coming to this board and crying ain't going to solve the problem!* Just trying to make sure no one else does the same mistake! If you interpret my vociferous warnings as crying, then, let it be, AS LONG AS I GET MY POINT ACROSS. AK