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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (899)	4/29/1999 3:59:00 AM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Wexler learns a lesson from CPU - and now eyes Borders (BGP) Borders stock has already taken a huge beating, but my guess is that next Q's numbers will be beyond dismal. While the net is eating it alive, Borders is opening more locations. The stock could get cut in half again.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (899)	4/29/1999 6:11:00 AM
From: Bill Wexler	Respond to of 10293

More brilliant thinking.... techstocks.com <<<So, Wexler has been 100% correct about TAVA stock price YTD. So What? If he is wrong for just one week, I may double my money and he may have to cover his short (if he hasn't already, just being dramatic here <g>). I will have been correct only 5% of the time, but so much better off.>>>

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (899)	4/29/1999 11:10:00 PM
From: chester lee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

Bill, VLNC makes the news. biz.yahoo.com Court Reinstates Fraud Suit SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court reinstated a securities fraud suit by stockholders of a battery technology company Thursday and said a magazine article critical of the company did not contain reasons to suspect fraud. Valence Technology Inc. and several of its officers were sued in May 1994 after its stock tumbled when it announced it couldn't fulfill a $100 million contract. The company was then based in San Jose; it has since moved to Henderson, Nev. U.S. District Judge James Ware dismissed the suit because it was filed more than a year after a February 1993 Forbes magazine article that said the company's touted new battery was untested in the real world. The article also said Valence had a history of insiders and underwriters making money while journalists accepted the company's ''boastful pronouncements.'' Ware ruled that the article put stockholders on notice of the problems that ultimately led to the suit, and therefore started the one-year period in which the suit could be file. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the article contained no claim of fraud and ''would not have led a reasonable investor to investigate the possibility of fraud.'' The court noted the company's stock price recovered after dipping briefly following publication of the article. The court said it was not deciding whether a securities fraud suit had to be filed within a year of the disclosure of facts that should cause a reasonable investor to suspect fraud, or only within a year of the time the investor learns of the alleged fraud. By either standard, the suit was filed on time and should be allowed to proceed, Judge Betty Fletcher said in a 3-0 ruling. Robert P. Feldman, lawyer for Valence and three of its officers, said the company would study the ruling and decide whether to appeal. ''If not, we'll win in the trial court,'' he said. The suit was filed as a proposed class action on behalf of everyone who bought company stock between May 1992, when it announced new battery technology and made an initial public offering, and August 1994, when it abandoned the new technology. Valence signed a $100 million contract with Motorola in December 1992 to use Valence's new solid electrolyte rechargeable batteries in cellular telephones. Valence raised $167 million in a series of public offerings and saw its stock climb to $20 a share in December 1993, after a drop to $12.50 following the Forbes article. The stock sank to $5.25 after Valence announced in May 1994 that it could not meet Motorola's specifications, and to $3.37 1/2 in August 1994 when the new battery was scuttled. The case is Berry vs. Valence Technology, 97-17346.