Post A Reply
my profile
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board
»
Hot Stocks Free for All !
»
CSHD: The Never-ending Story
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by T e x: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by harpeter: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by T e x: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ironman64: [qb] Tex -- As I recall, I responded to your post already....re-read it and print it if need be. You find the REG that prohibits it if you are so hot to trot on that. After all, you are hung up on the TPR just like the crooks. Right? And, BTW, your post earlier about Alexander and shares pretty much summed it up on your stance. Right where we thought you were lined up. [/qb][/QUOTE]me! lol, YOU said the TPR is what raised Hell...If I were in your position, ie, advocating that TPR is a legit technique/tactic/whatever...MAN O MAN! I'd have those links at my fingertips, ready to trot out for anyone to read... No, dude, I know a divvy is a divvy--and you gotta give folks advance notice, including NASDAQ. By the way? Who is "we"? Can't you/they read the filings? You disagree he raked off about 6 to 7 million dollars U$D? [/qb][/QUOTE]Tex, the only thing that bothers me about the TPR was at the time Rufus PR'ed it, there wasn't enough shares in the authorized shares to accomodate the extra 6 shares that were to be issued. Someone said that Rufus was going to make that his next filing. I think that was said by Rufus on the radio or that conference call he had. [/qb][/QUOTE]Hello, Harpeter, Nice to see another new "face"... If I knew that about share-count, I had forgotten it. I haven't followed every twist-n-turn on this thing; was following early, then was in-n-out quite a bit that fall. Anyway, what bothered me was two-fold: first, given the date range of the PR(s?) and the announced, let's say, "effective date," I could not see how the paperwork could get to NASDAQ abd cleared in time to make the date; second, if there *was* an end-run around it being a divvy/split, I could not find any regs to support it. On the contrary, what I found was something to the effect that "less than full disclosure on any cash or stock distribution" is considered manipulative. That's good to know about the share structure, though. Do you know whether the share structure you consider "genuine" can be verified? Or is that one of those "he said, she said" controversies? In other words, do the various camps agree that A/S would have needed to be increased in order to accommodate the 6-for-1? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Allstocks.com Message Board Home
© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2