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 : ALU - Allou Health & Beauty: Another Web Play -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Karpel who wrote (313)	4/23/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: Timoteo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 418

Richard, if you read my earlier post, it was clear that ALU felt the company was not mature enough to IPO. I'm not sure what your financial background is, but it made a lot of sense to me. What would they be sued for? The company is selling above its average, book value is at an all-time high, and the stock will be back in the 13s in weeks if not days. I've seen shareholder lawsuits fail when stock prices dropped 500%. The legal issue is were misleading statements issued. Fiduciary trust? This is the stock market, not a passbook savings account! Best, Timoteo

To: Richard Karpel who wrote (313)	4/23/1999 2:24:00 PM
From: Bo Le	Respond to of 418

For the price they get from Subdury group, Jacob family just got a 75% return on their $3 million investment in Fragrance Counter. What kind of interests (direct or in-direct) they have in Subdury Group? Don't be angry if you find out answer. The market is telling us it is not happy with the deal and the ALU share price is heading south. I guess $8 or lower in next few weeks. BL

To: Richard Karpel who wrote (313)	4/23/1999 7:19:00 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 418

I don't get it. How is it possible that even the thread is so wrong? At an earlier time, I questioned the probabilities and some hypesters poured on me, but didn't give a clear answer. Message 8524136 Where is this tout? Read this post - "He said that the FC biz model dictates FC go public and they are working on that. The priority in a offering is to signifcantly reward ALU shareholders. " Sounds like a joke to me. Message 8179892 Message 8430643 Now, there are still some who think that the cash deal is a benefit, or think that ALU was too "weak" to carry on with the IPO. Incredible. I share the view that, if the subsidiary is taken out to a private company in parts, much of the IPO effect and -fantasy has been killed instantly. This one deserves the "stinky deal" fully. Bye, thread. IS

To: Richard Karpel who wrote (313)	4/24/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: LTK007	Respond to of 418

Richard having read through these posts,I think your post<< No, I didn't expect a 10-bagger. But>> says it most succinctly,that plain and simple this deals stinks---I will not touch this stock.Max90

To: Richard Karpel who wrote (313)	4/24/1999 2:58:00 PM
From: Questerr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 418

Richard, I already have a call into David S. When he calls me back, and if he can't convince me that this was the best deal he could muster for ALU shareholders, I will join you in suing the company. Not a lawyer, but I bet we might get one on a contingency fee, via class-action, etc. What I am most concerned about is how much did the Jacobs receive for their personal 15-18% equity stake in FC for their little $3 million loan to the company, when all the losses of FC were shared by all of us. That isn't right! What reputable audit firm (other than David S. himself), decided the $3 million was worth that much - even if it was a year ago. We as ALU shareholders should have gotten at least 40% of this deal!!!! Send me a PM, and like I said I will talk to David on Monday - already made it very clear to him in my voice mail message- this is a dark day in ALU's history - unless he can somehow convince me otherwise - and we can discuss legal remedies? If the Jacobs did not benefit any more than the rest of us, I will let this go. But if they benefited (significantly) for a short-term loan, when we as shareholders of ALU bore the cost of start-up and all the expense - I will gladly review the legal option. I have a lot of $$$ invested in this company!!!!! A decision of this magnitude should have been a shareholder decision, not a management decision. Let's hope everything was done at arms-length.