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 : SFLK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Fader who wrote (708)	2/16/1999 6:21:00 AM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1591

Glad you feel that way. I will be sending you my findings on SFLK by certified registered return receipt to your firm today. I will be also sending copies to some of the other attorneys from your firm. Maybe once you read this information you will change your tune. I will make sure that Ann Fader gets a copy also. floyd

To: Eric Fader who wrote (708)	2/16/1999 6:57:00 AM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 1591

"Speaking of which, I'm sure right now they're looking into the activities of certain entities located in Jersey City. Know what I mean, Sam?" Tell us everything you know Eric. Would be nice if you stated some facts. Why don't you tell us what you know? Who is Sam? Sounds like a story from Dr. Suess. floyd

To: Eric Fader who wrote (708)	2/16/1999 7:26:00 AM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1591

case law 101 SPYGLASS (SPYG) 11 15/16 -3/8 When the wolves descend, it's always bad, no matter how much spin the company tries to put on it. Spyglass has now been sued by 3 different law firms, the latest being Berger & Montague, announced today. The problem, according to the lawsuits, is that Spyglass made false statements regarding the expectations for its Q1, which ended December 31, 1998. When the company made its announcement on January 4, 1999, that expectations were for a loss of $0.15 a share, analysts were projecing a gain of $0.01 a share, the stock was slammed, dropping from 22 to 15. Since then, it has continued to drop. This type of lawsuit shows the importance of guidance by a company, gently letting the stock drop, rather than having the precipitous drop, which brings out lawsuits like this. No matter what happens with the lawsuit, the company loses. The expense and distraction of defending the suit hurts business. Typically, lawsuits like this end up getting settled without getting to court, but the only real winners are the law firms, and the biggest loser is the company. Shareholders typically get something back, and it is worth becoming part of the class action suit, however, you don't get all your money back, and the company usually suffers from the suits. With Spyglass as small it is, (revenues last quarter were just under $5 million), the cost of a defense winds up being significant, often reaching several hundred thousand dollars, even to reach a settlement, which can also be costly. These lawsuits will probably be settled. The long list of insider sales for Spyglass during the months of Decemember, November, and October, when the stock was around $23 a share, just plain looks bad. Briefing.com predicts a costly settlement is the most likely outcome of these suits. Spyglass, once a significant player in the browser wars, is now focusing on developing internet integration into set-top boxes for TV. Although there are possibilities in this area, the company hasn't shown any growth in years, and distractions like this problem are likely be a big problem. Not helping things is the fact that the President and CEO Douglas Colbeth recently stepped aside for an eight week medical leave due to a "cardiac condition."