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 : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (9634)	3/21/1999 1:21:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Final Recap (unless somebody wants to carry this further). The structure of the financing deal with Castle Creek allows them to hedge their bets. They do not have to report if they do hedge their bets. They have apparently not converted any preferred shares yet. My speculation: they probably have shorted at higher prices and maybe even covered shorts in the open market at closer to the current price. They may have done this more than once. The structure of the agreement allows them to do this with little risk. I don't see such activities as a "conspiracy theory" or Castle Creek "betting" that VLNC will fail or succeed. I simply see them trying to maximize their profits while the ultimate outcome is unknown, while positioning themselves to profit regardless of the direction of the ultimate outcome. We should get a clue about the ultimate outcome soon when we see the next round of financing.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (9634)	3/21/1999 2:37:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Finally, Larry you got it. Your last post has finally got it right (except for the voting issue). Everyone should re-read it. Message 8438172 And then compare it with this post of mine from yesterday: Message 8429847 Contrary to what you and Zeev have been saying for months, the preferred shares, and the money warrants, do count when counting beneficial ownership. The shares showed as beneficially owned are not common shares, they are the converted equivalent of some of the preferred shares. The only reason CC isn't shown as a beneficial owner of 11.4%, is the clause restricting conversion of the preferred once 4.9% of the common shares have been issued. But its interesting that Valence added the footnote detailing the 11.4% figure at all. Why? Its clear that the intent of this section in the SEC filing is to reveal CC's ownership claims. I suggest Valence added the footnote, as a CYA effort to make sure the intent of the law was met. If this is true, it raises a significant question; shouldn't all Castle Creek positions in the stock or other Valence securities be revealed? In other words, short or long positions acquired apart from the preferred shares and warrants? When CC took down the 2nd tranche, they got into a situation where they should have disclosed all of their benefical positions in the SEC filing. Well, we'll not be able to settle that today..., so I'll move on. We've got some more mis-representations that you have made on this thread to work on today. I'll get into that in the next post. Paul