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 : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: iceburg who wrote (21175)	3/19/1999 11:19:00 PM
From: Lhn5	Respond to of 29386

Are there restrictions either a certain point in time prior to the ipo and after it when no new news can be released? Doesn't everything pretty much have to be revealed prior to the ipo for full disclosure? How are NDA's handled with respect to this?

To: iceburg who wrote (21175)	3/19/1999 11:29:00 PM
From: doc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

i checked into some of the hot internet ipos this week. out of four, 2 filed the s1 ~60 days ago. the other two filed ~90 days ago. it probably also depends on the mood of the overall market and how ipos are being received at the time.

To: iceburg who wrote (21175)	3/20/1999 7:19:00 AM
From: Patrick Sharkey	Respond to of 29386

Ice, I expect that the Brocade IPO will be a gold mine of information concerning product features, Brocade's approach to the marketplace and the reasons for its success, and in terms of discussion of what it is competing with, and the basis of that competition. I am looking forward to the comments of the more technically-oriented as they pick apart the S-1 share nuggets of information and analysis concerning where Ancor and Brocade stand in relation to one another. As to IPO timing from filing, through approval to the marketplace, our Firm's record for any IPO is 29 days, with the more normal time period being 60-90, and even longer, depending on many, many factors, including those having nothing to do with the content of the IPO. I agree with your observations about what the Brocade IPO discloses. If in 1998, 72% of $24 million was Sequent-related, and 11% related to McData/EMC, the rest of the market for Brocade was only 3.5 million, which is consistent with Ancor's dollar experience, although the type of product sold being a mix for Ancor. The Sequent deal looks like is has disappointed everyone, although perhaps the low gross volume cannot be compared to the initial Ancor announcement of up to $30 million in switches. The numbers for the first quarter also are interesting in the ramp being experienced with McData/EMC, consistent with what EMC has announced in terms of the fibre channel growth which it has experienced and continues to experience. I expect that Brocade has said everything that can be said in the S1 to avoid any future liability by way of recission or damage actions. IPO liability is based upon being wrong, or failing to dislose material facts without regard to one's state of mind, unlike Section 10b-5 liability, which is dependent on being wrong, by either affirmative misstatement or omission to state material facts, and either intentionally wrong or recklessly wrong in your disclosure. Generally, the remedy for IPO problems is recission of the IPO, while a Section 10b action involves damages.