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 : DCI Telecommunications - DCTC Today -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Colin Cody who wrote (16081)	5/4/1999 4:41:00 PM
From: Baldwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19331

Edit: Colin....agreed....you keep bringing up same point I am....no one is answering!! (re: "If the CPAs did their work, then the SEC should be told to take a hike. BUT, if the CPAs were negligent, then I plan on being lead plaintiff in a class action suit.")

To: Colin Cody who wrote (16081)	5/4/1999 4:53:00 PM
From: Provalue	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19331

Colin, Do you really think the world needs ANOTHER lawsuit hungry vulture? Do you really believe that it will make a difference? Think again.

To: Colin Cody who wrote (16081)	5/4/1999 4:55:00 PM
From: wd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19331

Here is an article that shows why the company was not notified of the trading halt until after the stock was halted: Nasdaq OKs trading halts In snub to advisors, NASD votes to stop trades without telling company first March 25, 1999: 6:19 p.m. ET NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Officials at the Nasdaq stock market approved a new rule Thursday that will let the exchange halt trading of a company's stock before notifying the company itself. Overruling its own advisory panel, the National Association of Securities Dealers board voted to allow regulators to stop trading any time there is news that affects the ability of investors to conduct "fair and orderly" trades. Nasdaq said the policy will help regulators react quickly to prevent the dissemination of partial or false information from causing a stock price to swing. "By removing this sometimes time-consuming requirement, our surveillance team will be able to act more quickly," Nasdaq President Alfred Berkeley said in a statement. Under previous rules, Nasdaq officials were required to contact the issuer of a stock before it could halt trading of shares -- regardless of what information was driving a price swing. The Securities and Exchange Commission must approve the NASD-backed changes. Last month, Nasdaq's Quality of Markets Committee, an advisory panel of 17 brokers, investors and others in the securities industry, recommended against such trading halts. The action comes against the backdrop of a boom in Internet-based stock trading and the advent of "day trading," in which investors try to cash in on small price moves in a security -- often making many trades a day. The online trading phenomenon has in part fueled a rash of volatility among many Nasdaq -- mainly Internet-related -- stocks. The NASD, the parent company of the Nasdaq, tabled a second, more sweeping proposal to allow trading halts at the discretion of exchange officials. An NASD spokesman said he did not know when or whether it would come back up for a vote. ____

To: Colin Cody who wrote (16081)	5/4/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: Ken Salaets	Respond to of 19331

>> If the CPAs did their work, then the SEC should be told to take a hike. More than that, Colin. If this turns out to have been over-reaching, for want of a better term, on the part of the SEC, at our expense, then there should be consequences. IMHO. Ken

To: Colin Cody who wrote (16081)	5/4/1999 5:26:00 PM
From: Grantcw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19331

Hello Colin, You're right that the SEC is going after other pooling mergers, but it seems they are taking more drastic measures with DCTC than with AOL, since we are the ones halted for two weeks. How can the SEC challenge a company after it has been audited? Well, CPA firms don't do the best job all the time at making sure that their clients are using GAAP all the time. It's always a battle by the partners or other higher managers of the CPA firm to get the company (DCTC or AOL) to follow what the CPA firm deems as right. Imagine what happens when the partner of the auditing firm goes into A CEO's office and tells him that he can't use the pooling of interests method, and that he will be forced to amortize goodwill for the next 20 years? The CEO says, why not? The partner will try to reason with the CEO, who probably doesn't have too much accounting expertise, and maybe he will convince the CEO that it is for the better. If not though, the CEO may threaten to get new auditors and not pay for the services. Basically, it's a negotiation over every accounting issue that the company and the auditor disagree on. Generally, they come to an agreement one way or the other, and the disagreement never shows up on the audit opinion. This may or may not have happened with DCTC, but it does happen for other companies. Can we sue? Yep. Happens a lot when company's are given a clean audit opinion, are forced to restate earnings, and then go bankrupt. I don't know how much we can get now just for this restatement, but maybe it's worth a try? Just don't sue our beloved DCTC! See ya, Grant