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: AriKirA who wrote (4069)	2/9/1999 11:40:00 PM
From: Mr. Jens Tingleff	Respond to of 4715

AK - Thanks for keeping close track on the tradelist. So now OS is 4MM shares !! I do not believe any rumors that LTGL might be for sale - We are the best cows SK ever had. Looks as if the orderbacklog is included in january sales. Well doesn't really matter when 125,000$ goes into the cashbook from LTGL most profitable product - shares. We should all be happy that our little company has such a good product. Keep buying, farmer SK won't bring us to the slaughterhouse as long as we produce. Yet girls, I see some very nice bulls on other fields I'm off leaving you a-LONE - muh-muh-mu-muh-muuh-muh-muuh-muoh (=sorry but I need bull now not BS) Kr Jens

To: AriKirA who wrote (4069)	2/10/1999 10:30:00 AM
From: jebj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4715

>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. That was my point, AK - without a reduction in issueble shares, are they not, in effect, re-selling the same shares over again? >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. Certainly would think so. >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! And reverse split and do it again. >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. Am well aware of the incorp laws of Navada and you are right, they can absolutley rape the shareholders under those laws. >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) For the very reason of no protection from Navada and since LTGL is operating from Florida, you might be surprised what the AG might be interested in. Particularly if everyone puts a little statement as to how they enjoy vacationing in Fla. and if this is the treatment they can expect from someone that is expected to protect the public - you might re-think that next vacation. A note to our newly elected Gov.- Mr. Bush - might be in order as well but wouldn't expect too much from him. >>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. Didn't mean it in just that tone, AK - just that unless and until someone takes the time to TRY to do something, it will never be done. As for the SEC's interest - one assumes you are right that they would not have the time or interest but one would be surprised at what 50 letters can do to move a large agency. All of this depends, of course, on if you can prove the company is selling more shares AND has done so in the past after making repeated statements that they would not do so and you purchased your shares in part because of thoe and other "doing well" type statements. Anyone have any of this info that can be used? Conversations - who, when, what said? Written statements? A past history of having done this before would go a very long way in getting action, it would seem to me. jb