Politics | RAMTRONIAN's Cache Inn


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: NightOwl who wrote (6819)11/13/1998 8:10:00 AM
From: gammaray   of 14464
 
<<<<I know Neil's problem,>>>>

My problem? You are the same person who wrote pages in support of the preferred offering. The heart of your defense was that the common would certainly go to $10 as a result. You and I went to war over your interpretation. Nothing you said then made sense but your sincerity and professioal lawyer word smithing are enough to soothe the masses and keep them in hybernation. You are doing the same with Dan. Your scare tactics disguised as a concerned friend and thread citizen are old. How much is Sykes paying you?

Neil

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: gammaray who wrote (6821)11/13/1998 9:58:00 AM
From: Pat Pending   of 14464
 
Thanks Niel,
For the Bird to suggest that this stock should be traded
for accumulation certanly indicates that his devotion lays
with Sykes, You can't trade the stock with licenses announcments
due at any moment. these Pending announcment his what made the
whole scam possible.. They done an excellent job with years of planning. A bird in the hand, is not worth nothing.

Pat

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: NightOwl who wrote (6819)11/13/1998 11:15:00 AM
From: Gutterball   of 14464
 
These bums are worse than the group that brought us International Heritage #reply-3702991. They are worse because they are smarter and haven't been caught.

Financial markets have become so sophisticated that wee investors don't understand them -- so don't feel bad. In fact, they are so sophisticated Ramtron had to go to the main office of Arthur Andersen in Chicago for help in disclosing how they were in the business of ripping off wee investors yet make it seem OK #reply-6400234. As long as wee investors are content with an uptick and a hard-on, companies like Ramtron will continue to get away with their low life schemes.

Andersen's comment about "household" names are in the same fix #reply-6400234 only shows how widespread this kind of graft (unfair gain) is and how apathetic wee investors are when they have an uptick and a hard-on.

Consider the Fund loan negotiation. Two deadlines have passed. The conference call indicated the Fund wants a long term loan agreement. Interest rates are falling, there have been two downward adjustments in the fed rate, another is being considered, etc. Common sense says, if the Fund wants a long term agreement, why aren't they trying to lock in higher interest rates. Trouble is, we won't know the reason behind all this until after the knife has been plunged into our hearts.

Regarless how hard Sikes tries to fix the problem, he will not be able to fix it. For you see, in order to fix the problem, and I'm talking shareholder confidence, he will have to resign.

VOTE NO !!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Gutterball who wrote (6823)11/13/1998 11:53:00 AM
From: Gutterball   of 14464
 
I'd like to welcome all those who recently BOT Ramtron above $.70 and have come looking for reasons why such a promising company is down.

I am encouraging a " VOTE NO" campaign on Ramtron's upcoming proxy to authorize additional common shares so Ramtron can continue conversion of preferred stock. I thought while you wait for RMTR to return to higher prices you'd like to learn how you can use those shares to achieve your investment objectives.

Here are the URLs to my argument why wee shareholders should "VOTE NO".

LISTEN UP! THE ARGUMENT FOR VOTE NO! PART I: THE BRIGHT SIDE #reply-6324008

LISTEN UP! THE ARGUMENT FOR VOTE NO! PART II: THE DARK SIDE #reply-6329283

LISTEN UP! THE ARGUMENT FOR VOTE NO! PART II: THE DARK SIDE (con't) #reply-6382379

FOR THE RECORD - EXCERPTS OF MOHR'S CONFERENCE CALL COMMENTS #reply-6400234

Please share any feelings or comments you may have about all this. If you support the campaign, I ask that you sign your post with "VOTE NO !!". This will draw attention to the campaign and help keep it alive.

Thank you,

VOTE NO !!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Gutterball who wrote (6824)11/13/1998 1:28:00 PM
From: ShamukE   of 14464
 
I've purchased what at the time was a rather hefty ($'s) position in RMTR. In fact in the beginning I was playing with options and I was lucky enough to make a few bucks. I tucked away the stock with the intention of unloading it when I needed some mad money. The company caught my attention from the start and I'm still fascinated by what could be a fantastic future if it doesn't roll over.

I've been following your thinking regarding the present situation that the co. is in. I agree that it stinks. I've learned over the years that when analyzing a situation the first thing to do is the smell test. Needless to say the activity of the last number of months fail.

Question is if the company can weather this adversity and I remain intact what is the best way to proceed. I'm not in the habit of cutting off my nose to ... .

If you would be so kind as to post a simple analysis of results of a yes vote vs. a no vote myself and I'm quite certain many others would be in your debt.

TIA

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Gutterball who wrote (6824)11/13/1998 1:54:00 PM
From: Gutterball   of 14464
 
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 15947 / October 27, 1998


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GOLDMAN LENDER & CO. HOLDINGS, BLACKWELL CO., TRADERZ ASSOCIATES HOLDING INC., SHARON HAROSH and AMERICO ROBERT GALLO, 98 Civ. 7525 (S.D.N.Y.)(JGK)

NEW YORK-- The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an action in federal court in Manhattan on October 23, 1998, alleging that two individuals and three entities fraudulently raised over $210,000 through a scheme involving phony private placements of securities. According to the Commission's Complaint, the defendants told investors that they could purchase securities in the private placements of three entities and in a few months the companies would go public and the investors would double or triple their money. The defendants also falsely told investors that investing in the private placements involved low risk because the investors' money would be kept in an escrow account at a law firm. In fact, there was no escrow account and the two principals of the three entities misappropriated a significant portion of the investors' money.

Named in the Complaint were:

Americo Robert Gallo, age 32, the President of Traderz Associates Holding Inc. ("Traderz Associates"), and a resident of Brooklyn, New York;

Sharon Harosh, age 25, the President and Secretary of Goldman Lender & Co. Holdings ("Goldman Lender") and the sole proprietor of Blackwell Co. Harosh resides in Brooklyn, New York;

Traderz Associates, a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business was in New York City;

Goldman Lender, a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business also was in New York City; and

Blackwell, a sole proprietorship owned by Sharon Harosh. Blackwell's principal place of business was in New York City.

The Commission's Complaint alleges that Gallo telephoned investors and solicited them to purchase the securities of Traderz Associates in a private placement. The Complaint alleges that in those phone calls, Gallo made misrepresentations to investors concerning, among other things, the risk of investing in Traderz Associates securities, the potential profit investors could expect to make by purchasing Traderz Associates securities and the use of investors' funds by Traderz Associates. In fact, Gallo has misappropriated a significant portion of the offering proceeds and has given other large sums to colleagues.

The Commission's Complaint also alleges that Harosh used several fictitious names, or instructed his agents to use fictitious names, in soliciting investors to purchase the securities of Goldman Lender and Blackwell. Harosh, or his unknown agents, made misrepresentations to investors concerning, among other things, the risk of investing in the securities of Goldman Lender and Blackwell, the potential profit investors could expect to make by purchasing the securities of Goldman Lender and Blackwell, the use of investors funds by Goldman Lender and Blackwell and the existence of Blackwell securities. Harosh ultimately received all of the money that investors sent to Goldman Lender and Blackwell and deposited those funds into various bank accounts in the names of those entities. Shortly after depositing the investors' funds, Harosh wired a significant part of the funds to offshore bank accounts and also withdrew in cash a significant part of the remaining proceeds.

The investors in each of the three offerings have not received any securities nor any confirmation of their supposed purchases. The investors have never been refunded their money.

In addition to the above-described violations, in July 1998, several of the investors who had purchased Goldman Lender's securities were again solicited to purchase shares in Ramtron International Corp. ("Ramtron"), a Delaware corporation that designs, manufactures and sells semiconductor memory chips. Ramtron's stock price is quoted on the NASDAQ National Market System. Investors were told that they could purchase shares of Ramtron at approximately $2 per share and sell them later that same day through Goldman Lender at approximately double the price. At least two investors agreed to buy Ramtron stock and sent at least $37,500 to Goldman Lender. These investors never received any Ramtron shares nor did they receive confirmation that they had purchased or sold shares of Ramtron stock. None of these investors in Ramtron ever received back any of the funds that they sent to Goldman Lender.

In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws -- Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission is seeking an asset freeze, an accounting of investors' money and a temporary restraining order against all five defendants. The Commission also seeks permanent injunctions against future violations of the antifraud provisions, disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.

sec.gov 

First Reference: sec.gov 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: ShamukE who wrote (6825)11/13/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: Gutterball   of 14464
 
If the proxy passes, we will see at least 3 1/2 months more of conversion and basement bargain prices -- this is not an option. To date, conversion has given wee investors 64% dilution. If conversion continues, we will get at least another 48% dilution #reply-6329283. Also, at these low prices, you can forget Sikes' spew about Ramtron's Capital Structure. It isn't going to happen and if it does, Ramtron will give up so much in the deal you'll wish it hadn't. Sikes' path is the road to a reverse split so they can turn around and stick it to you again since you like it so much.

There is a more fundamental issue than the conversion. It is the propensity of a core group of insiders to benefit themselves at the expense of wee investors. In order to protect the company, these guys have got to go -- they include the mule, the brother, and jethro. I could give you mohr names but...

Based on present stock outstanding and a pre-conversion market cap, if investor confidence in Ramtron were restored we would be trading around $3 per share today #reply-6324008. The reason we aren't is because of the dark cloud hanging over Ramtron. If conversion is allowed to continue that normal trading range would drop to $1.5. Any error in Ramtron's guess "another 30 million shares" and we will be looking at a reverse split. Recall, they've been wrong before.

Here is my scenario for turning Ramtron around.

1) VOTE NO and defeat the proxy - Cappello will be interested in listening to new terms, believe me, they want their money.

2) Show Sikes, Stathakis, Tull, Mohr, and Jones, the door - This will put shareholders on notice that Ramtron recognizes it has a problem and that it is prepared to take the steps to resolve them. I'm sure if we dig into company records we could find cause to remove Sikes and Jones.

3) Replace these bums with a crack group of people who will deal on fair terms with Cappello and the Fund. Use some of the cash to buy back debt if necessary.

4) Balance FRAM expenses with revenues in order to get Ramtron profitable. This may mean laying off people, it certainly means delivering new licenses. In other words, get profitable in 98Q4. One of the things killing Ramtron, is Reuters has reported Q2 and Q3 with the title -- loss widens. This monkey business with non-cash charges is killing Ramtron in the press.

5) Give Rhodine Sikes' salary with the understanding that ESDRAM will carry a greater load for the company.

In short, removing the conversion and getting profitable will do wonders for Ramtron. It also means Cappello and the Fund will have to get their greasy mits of Ramtron. And remember, once Ramtron is profitable, it won't have to deal with the likes of Cappello or the Fund.

Anyway, we have followed these bums from $9 to $.25 this year. If you want to see RMTR at 1/8 or lower you can follow the Mule and vote Yes!

As for me, I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any longer. I'm voting NO and I ask you to join me and...

VOTE NO !!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Gutterball who wrote (6799)11/13/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: Gutterball   of 14464
 
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT AND OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS

dated as of September 29, 1998 by and between RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("Borrower") and the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND ("Lender").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender are parties to that certain Loan Agreement dated as of August 31, 1995 (the "Original Loan Agreement");

WHEREAS, as of the date hereof and pursuant to the Original Loan Agreement, Lender has an outstanding loan to Borrower in the principal amount of Five Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,500,000) (the "Loan");

WHEREAS, the Loan is evidenced by that certain Promissory Note of the Borrower dated August 31, 1995 made payable to the order of Lender (the "Note"), and secured by (i) that certain Deed of Trust dated as of August 31, 1995 made by Borrower to the Public Trustee in favor of Lender and recorded September 26, 1995 in Book 6731 at Page 703 of the El Paso County Land Records; that certain Security Agreement dated as of August 31, 1995 made by Borrower in
favor of Lender; (iii) that certain Patent Security Agreement dated as of August 31, 1995 made by Borrower in favor of Lender and recorded with the Assignment Branch of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as of September 29, 1995 at Reel 7662 and Frame 0353; (iv) that certain EMS Stock Pledge Agreement dated as of August 31, 1995 made by Borrower in favor of Lender; and (v) that certain Racom Stock Pledge Agreement dated as of August 31, 1995 made by Borrower in favor of Lender collectively, all of the foregoing documents including the Note and the documents enumerated in (i) through (iv) and all other documents evidencing and securing all or a
portion of the Loan being referred to as the "Loan Documents");

WHEREAS, the Scheduled Maturity Date of the Loan under the Original Loan Agreement and the Loan Documents was June 30, 1998;

WHEREAS, the Scheduled Maturity Date was extended to September 30, 1998 pursuant to that First Amendment to the Loan Agreement (the "First Amendment") dated as of June 1, 1998 in order to allow the Lender to investigate the advisability and possible terms of extending the loan for a longer period;

WHEREAS, the Lender has reached tentative terms under which it proposes to extend the Loan for a three (3) year period but the Borrower has recently proposed additional funding from the Lender which may take the form of an increase in the amount of the loan; and

WHEREAS, in order to allow more time for the Lender to evaluate the Borrower's latest proposal, the Lender has decided to extend the Scheduled Maturity Date of the Loan to December 15, 1998.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises hereof and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby established, the Borrower and the Lender hereby agree as follows:

1. Amendments to the Original Loan Agreement. Section 1.58 defining "Scheduled Maturity Date" of the Original Loan Agreement is hereby amended to delete the date "June 30, 1998" and insert the date "December 15, 1998" in lieu thereof.

2. No Other Amendment. Other than as expressly modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Original Loan Agreement and each of the other Loan Documents shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have executed this Second Amendment to the Loan Agreement and Other Loan Documents as of the day and year first above written.

RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation

By: /S/ L. David Sikes
----------------------
L. David Sikes
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer

Attest:

/S/ Richard L. Mohr
----------------------
By: Richard L. Mohr
Secretary


NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND

By: /S/ Edwin D. Hill
----------------------
Edwin D. Hill
Trustee

WITNESS:

/S/ Peggy Cleveland


STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.:
COUNTY OF EL PASO)

On this 1st day of October, 1998, before me personally came L. David Sikes, to me known or satisfactorily proven, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say the he resides at 1850 Ramtron Drive; that he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and that in such capacity he executed the within instrument on behalf of the company for the purposes therein set forth.


/S/ Deborah E. Doyle
----------------------
Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

10-30-99
----------------------

)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) ss.:
)

On this 29th day of September, 1998, before me personally came Edwin D. Hill, to me known or satisfactorily proven, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he is the Trustee of the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND, and that in such capacity he executed the within instrument on behalf of the trust for the purposes therein set forth.

/S/ Crystal L. Davis
----------------------
Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

Crystal L. Davis
Notary Public District of Columbia
My commission expires July 14, 2002

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Gutterball who wrote (6828)11/13/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: B. Anders   of 14464
 
Quarterly report at sec.yahoo.com 

Is it a waste of time and resources to read it ?



Berto ( in Koala country)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Gutterball who wrote (6828)11/13/1998 5:51:00 PM
From: Gutterball   of 14464
 
Have you ever said, I BOT when I should have SOLD"?

Well that's what Sikes is doing with the Fund loan agreement. He is trying to borrow more money when he should be paying the loan off. In fact, from an honest shareholder's point of view, who is ignorant of that bag of sophisticated financial tricks Sikes is reaching into, I'd say paying the Fund off should be priority number one.

What scares me about the Fund's loan agreement, is that it appears Ramtron has pledged its most important assets to secure $5.5 million dollars. I'm talking 1) physical plant, 2) patents, 3) stock in EMS, and 4) stock in Racom.

To make a long story short, if the Mule pisses $10 million cash away and the Fund calls the loan, the Fund owns Ramtron if Ramtron can't come up with the cash. Is this the kind of risk you want to own with your position in Ramtron? NOT!

The more I learn about Ramtron the more I say...

VOTE NO !!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.