"Billy Chapel" <outofoptions (AT) outoftime (DOT) com> wrote

I said that......? I don't think so.......

Closest we've been to that is assertions that the SHAREHOLDERS would sue
Pook/CART etc. for blowing away the $$ & me say I couldn't see how they
could - public company, information in the public domain, your investments
may go down as well as up etc etc...this is a race promotor or some such is
it not?

I.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 05:01:56 -0000, "Iain Miller" <donot (AT) spam (DOT) me>
wrote:


The shareholders were LIED to, Iain. Maybe you can do that in Merry
Old England, but not in the Good Old US of A.

Look for more lawsuits, and some form shareholders, sooner than you
think.

Billy Chapel <outofoptions (AT) outoftime (DOT) com> wrote in
news:2ab8f609fb77e94c1d44beded9cad030 (AT) news (DOT) teranews.com:

Oh, Ken Lay and his colleagues might disagree ...

On 14 Dec 2003 19:41:06 GMT, C Story <cstory (AT) NOSPAM (DOT) magma.ca> wrote:


Maybe I should re-phrase that.

You can do it, but it is illegal to do it.

Billy Chapel <outofoptions (AT) outoftime (DOT) com> wrote in
news:a750e94fcd03d4c1d3dddd858a759d1c (AT) news (DOT) teranews.com:

Somehow, I think fraud is illegal in England, too ...

On 14 Dec 2003 20:22:33 GMT, C Story <cstory (AT) NOSPAM (DOT) magma.ca> wrote:


I would think so, but apparently Iain doesn't think so.

I get the impression being lied to, cheated, defrauded, etc. is just
hunky-dory as long as you could have sold the stock.

Were they? If that was the case then why havn't there been suits before now?
Its been obvious CART was burning cash all year long. If you call accepting
an unrealistic business plan being lied to then I disagree with you. If on
the other hand you can cite specific guarantess/statements of fact that were
made that people made KNOWING they were falsehoods then you are right -
obviously.....I'm not aware of any but always happy to be educated . Pie in
the sky business plans & projections don't count in this regard I'm
afraid......those are the ones the stockholders should spot and have the
opportunity to stop.

Slightly....

Then I don't think I have made myself properly understood. Enron was fraud,
Worldcom was Fraud......is CART or its board guilty of similar false or
creative accounting ? For sure they spent all the cash and you can call that
(morally) stealing from the stockholders if you like (but technically it
wasn't I think). As far as I can see they did it right out in the open
having followed all correct procedures and in line with their published
business plan, having had shareholders meetings etc etc etc. All the way
down the line the shareholders could call an extraordinary meeting and
remove the board and stop the thing....(assuming it works the same way it
does here). That said I would imagine that a lot of the funds got committed
very early in the year anyway such that when it became apparent the thing
wasn't working there was nothing that could be done about the relevant
contracts anyway.

The problem is actually pinning something down that proves any of that.
Morally you may be right - the position factually may, however, be a
slightly different matter.

To be honest I don't know enough of the detail but nor has anyone actually
produced anything specific that a case could be based on save for "They
spent all the money going racing" - and I doubt that would get too far given
the nature of the business concerned ! Ultimately what they did was not too
different from what a lot of businesses do. They invested in
production/product/stock in the belief that they could sell it - they
couldn't - they lost a lot of money - end of story. Much like (for example)
a fresh food or a holiday (vacation) business their stock (of goods) has a
finite shelf life which is now exhausted.

One of the big package tour (vacation) operators here has just got this
badly wrong this year - they lost close to $1.5 Bn on the year. In that
particular business they call it "yield management" - they buy the aircarft
seats and commit themselves to Hotel rooms etc - if they don't sell them
then they are screwed. Predicting capacity and how much to buy (i.e. how
much they can sell) and at what time of year is something those companies
deal with year in year out. In a good year they make 5%.

I.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:43 -0000, "Iain Miller" <donot (AT) spam (DOT) me>
wrote:


It is not my job to educate you, Iain.

Why do you want everyone else to do your homework for you?



That's not what I said, ever.



I'll give you ONE, then you will have to go and look up ALL the others
all by yourself. I will give you a clue as to one good place to start
in CART's own archives (on their site) - CART had stated they would
not be providing financial guidance, and did not for nearly a year,
then suddenly they released one document of financial guidance this
summer outlining how they would have sufficient funds to continue
operations through 2004. Only ten days after that financial guidance
letter they released another saying they would NOT have sufficient
funds to complete the 2004 season.

Now, the board and its accountants had over 10 months to get their
math straight before releasing the first financial guidance statement,
but yet they revised it SIGNIFICANTLY downward only ten days later.

Start your reading of the quarterlys, etc. right there and go either
way, prior or after that, and you will have a field day of falsehoods.

Now, here's your ONE:

The shareholders approved Pook spending UP TO $30 Million in assitance
to teams - no more. He ended up spending considerably more than that,
and all without a shareholders meeting to approve the increase in
expenditure.

He lied.



They never got the opportunity.



It should be.



I am tired of :educating" you and doing your homework for you, Iain.

If you want to know, go back and read ALL of the CART financial
statements, quarterly reports, financial guidance, etc. right from
their own site.

Once you have done that, get back to me.

Until then, you are on your own. I was not put here to repeatedly go
over the same point endlessly with someone who does not even take the
time to research the subject.



Read it all. I did. If I can, you can.

Quit trying to get someone to give you a Cliff's Notes version of it.



Apples and oranges. Irrelevant.

Everything you want to know, and everything you need to discuss the
topic INTELLIGENTLY is right there on CART's own website.

Get back to me when you have read it ALL and understand it.

Until then, on this subject, you are no more than a wanker.

"Iain Miller" <donot (AT) spam (DOT) me> wrote