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.

Non-Tech : BJ's Restaurants Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wowzer who wrote (347)	2/19/1999 11:06:00 AM
From: Lhn5	Respond to of 865

I didn't realize that ASSI was Habash. I don't understand the gambling issue in this new/old relatioship, as you say. I think based onthe number of warrants turned in, they were given a value of about .30 each? Perhaps unfairly high, but far different than .80 each. The dilution is not excessive, and certainly on better terms than some convertible deals etc whcih small cos sometimes resort to. Certainlly favorable to have the coffers full. Probably only in hindsight( like with many decisions) will it be completely clear if this was wise or not.

To: Wowzer who wrote (347)	2/19/1999 11:30:00 AM
From: Savant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 865

An alternate view. 1.A voting block appears to have been assembled to preclude an undervalued buy out of the company. 2.The company has been funded for current and future growth. 3.A large chunk of future dilution has been eliminated. 4.A motivated consultant has been assured. 5.Forget about the warrants, stock was purchased at an effective rate of 90 cents a share (assuming no 10% usual finder's fee)..+/-50% of market..with no attached warrants. Ordinarily the PP placee would have demanded a unit of discounted shares and warrants at a low price..so basically he received the equivalent of market price shares and warrants. Seems fair enough to me. Just some thoughts, Savant