Pacel Corp (PCOR)

[KlausVT]

awake -

here's some reading regarding reverse splits and put that in context with the history of Pacel => the conclusion is up to everyone's interpretation whether Pacel fits the described scenario.

http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Investing101/1010.html

Excerpt:

7. Restrict reverse splits. This is extremely important. If an individual files for bankruptcy, he or she can't declare bankruptcy again for seven years. Why should a publically traded company be any different? One reverse split is one too many, in my opinion, but multiple reverse splits should be against the law. The most corrupt companies sell hundreds of millions (or even billions) of shares of stock on a regular basis, then declare a reverse split, in effect reducing the number back to near zero, and promptly sell another billion or more shares into the market. In the world of OTC stocks, reverse splits are almost always the kiss of death, especially when they are followed by another round of dilution. I could name a dozen companies off the top of my head that do this for a living (and there are dozens more), but I'm sure every investor has at least one that they've been burned on. Fill in your favorite ripoff company's name here.

8. When a company does declare a reverse split, reduce the number of authorized shares accordingly. In other words, if a company has 500 million authorized shares available, and they sell them all to keep the company afloat, they shouldn't be allowed to declare a reverse split and start all over again. If they are truly declaring a reverse split to reduce the float (say, by enacting a 10 to 1 reverse split to reduce the number of shares to 50 million), then the authorized shares should be reduced proportionately. If they only care about freeing up more shares to sell, let them go to the stockholders for approval.

End Excerpt

Again, it is NOT a given that authorized shares are reduced by the r/s ratio unless corporate by-laws state this explicitely of state law requires it. And given the fact that Pacel has gone through several r/s without reducing the # of authorized shares it is safe th assume that it wasn't the case this time around.

You pointing to the r/s announcement does NOT indicate the reduction in a/s only in o/s and p/s.

Cheers