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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : ABC - Abacan Resources, Nigerian Oil $$$ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edward M. Zettlemoyer who wrote (2546)	3/6/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: SDR-SI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3156

Ed: Although I am not fully conversant in SEC law, I believe that it is a requirement that the DEF14 final proxy statement be filed with the SEC prior to or contemporaneously with its actual distribution to stockholders. I also have been told that the filing of a PRE-14 within some particular period allows the company to have the advantage of minimizing the time period between the actual DEF-14 filing and the meeting date, given minimum changes from the PRE-14, and that most companies choose to do so. Generally, there IS considerably more time between the filing date and the meeting date; but, according to those more conversant with the law than I, ABACF's filing is within the minimum time period required between filing/mailing and meeting date. Rumor has it that, if anything, the company probably chose too early an anticipated meeting date when they filed the PRE-14, since several in-process things still had to be accomplished prior to being able to definitively set the actual meeting date, allowing for the minimum time period required between filing of the DEF-14 and the actual date of meeting. If they had allowed (or been able to allow) themselves the luxury of a few extra weeks for the preliminarily stated meeting date, they would not have had to change the date. However, the time pressures of looming de-listing, vote necessary to prevent same, developments in the settlement of creditor claims, proposals for additional major investment(s), etc. all had competing time elements. It is easy to second guess what should have been done, but only the company and its attorneys actually had in hand all the information on which to base the decision, to say nothing of the knowledge of the law necessary to determine how it should have been done. As usual, both industry rumors and financial community rumors of both positive and negative developments abound. The most numerous of these rumors all contain the allegation that Mr. Stephens is making a concerted and valiant (and hopefully successful) effort to walk a very slippery tight-rope, trying to balance the various competing forces to attempt to maximize the possible outcomes for the benefit of stockholders (himself included). To have the company be forced to postpone and reschedule, and to have the rescheduling be at or near the minimum number of days acceptable under the law, is not an occurrence that gives one great confidence; but certainly no one involved in or conversant with this situation, as either a stockholder or observer, should be surprised at that. Again, as said many, many times, in many different ways, this is not a stock holding for anyone that does not understand it for the risky, gamble that it is. JMHO, BWDIK. Steve