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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Green Oasis Environmental, Inc. (GRNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: R KIEFHABER who wrote (10544)	4/10/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: Charles A. King	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13091

It would seem logical to me that the insurance company would want to settle quickly to avoid protracted litigation and growing costs, but interest on the money in question can pay for a lot of lawyer time. I have no idea how these things play out, but I see tort cases in the news lasting forever with many good people suffering needlessly because of it. For example, people dying because they were denied medical care because the insurance company or HMO refused to pay. For those victims of insurance companies, the injustice lasts for all eternity. I am not sure whether insurance companies are too concerned about what their customer base thinks about the quality of their ethics. I know that may not sound logical, but I think they are more concerned about their immediate bottom line rather than the fate of anybody else, including their clients. If that were not true, they should have settled by now, in my opinion. I have no idea how any negotiations have been handled between the insurance company and the lawyers suing G&S. For example, was the insurance company offered a deal to give them some consideration for settling early? On the other hand, suppose a judgment was rendered against G&S for far more than their insurance policy would pay, and after years of litigation, the judgement stuck. It is conceivable to me that G&S would go bankrupt. Would the insurance company care? Would the individuals making these decisions today still be around many years from now or would they be living off their golden parachutes, saying we thought we had a good case? Such is the nature of our legal system. Such is the nature of insurance companies. Would the insurance company be held liable if both GRNO and G&S went bankrupt because they refused to settle for a very reasonable sum? Suppose the actions of the lawyer assigned to GRNO by G&S resulted in provable losses amounting to many times the value of its malpractice insurance. Add to that the SC law which trebles damages for deliberate fraud. A horrendous fraud has been perpetrated against us investors. G&S claimed they would provide good legal service and they did anything but. It seems logical to me that any company with an ounce of ethical substance would want to settle such a suit at this point. But it might be oxymoronic to apply such a quality to an insurance company. Charles P. S. The SI spellchecker doesn't recognize the word oxymoronic, but I reserve the right to make up words as I go along.

To: R KIEFHABER who wrote (10544)	4/10/1999 4:05:00 PM
From: Charles A. King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13091

Compared to any other deal so far, the Chinese deal could be said to be too good to be true. After all, the Chinese gentleman tried to inject $1 million into GRNO and almost succeeded. Only the intervention of the Beijing government prevented that. I know about that government policy because the new policy was reported in the press. Many others who were trying to conduct normal business in Red China were similarly disrupted. That is the kind of behavior that does not lend itself to promoting confidence. The Chinese government's reneging on its promises of protecting foreign investors who held financial instruments registered with the Beijing government was another blow to those trying to attract foreign capital to Red China. Foreign investment in China will continue to dry up as it has in Russia, and for good reason. The post cold war period is over. Red China and the Russian oligarchs have bled as much private capital out of the West as they can expect and as they continue to oppose our attempts to reign in the monsters like the dictators of Iraq and Serbia, their true natures will be exposed. Although I agree that it was a disaster to lose the gentleman from China, I think what was really on his mind was the eventual pirating of GRNO's technology. I am sure the Chinese government would have backed him if he did so. But that was down the road, and what we are concerned about is the here and now. Charles