e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[But Anyway]

sunsetstrip,

These events transpired long before I bought my first edig shares. When I bought my first shares of edig in October, 1999 it was without any knowledge or concern of JABRA.

Then you were, as a shareholder, impacted by the JABRA issue.

Undoubtedly you reviewed the 10K filed in June of 1999 which stated "[t]he Company's 58,600 shares or approximately 2.5% investment in JABRA Corporation[...]"

Less than twelve months after this form was filed, in May of 2000 JABRA was acquired for $40 million plus earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $35 million.

http://www.communitech.com/Manufacturer%20News/gn_netcom/GN_Netcom_may_22.htm

The acquisition was effective in August of 2000 for the original terms of the deal.

http://investor.gn.com/investor/ar2000_p11.html

Let's do some math here:

1) $40 million multiplied by "approximately 2.5%" equals "approximately" $1 million,

2) Earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $35 million multiplied by "approximately 2.5%" equals "approximately" earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $875 thousand.

However the company's 10K filed in June of 2000 makes no mention of any position in JABRA nor does it disclose any transactions relating to the company's position in JABRA.

The approximate 2.5% ownership stake in JABRA disclosed on the 1999 10K is missing on the 2000 10K and there is no accounting for the "disappearance" of this approximately $1.875 million asset.

Oh, okay! The 10Q filed in February of 2001 does note the company recorded a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.

Spreading FUD and casting aspersions? Right, nothing to be concerned about here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and accuse 'But Anyway' of spreading FUD.

There is no reason for management to offer a public statement on this matter, none at all. This was all on the up-and-up, as the evidence clearly demonstrates.

An asset worth approximately $1,875,000 just gets up and walks off the balance sheets of the corporation under the nose of management and auditors and apparently reappears later as a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.

Spreading FUD and casting aspersions? WRONG! Voicing LEGITIMATE concerns that current and past shareholders should DEMAND management of the corporation publicly explain. Let's not forget that three of the four key managerial positions then are filled by the same individuals today.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=748620




More to the point, the JABRA event had to pass the inspection of shareholders and the auditors years ago.

Just as Enron and Worldcom had to pass the inspection shareholders and auditors too? Your contention is laughable considering the recently uncovered scourge of auditor-encouraged, or overlooked, corruption of corporate management.

Why the ruckus now??

That's the problem with these OTC-BB companies. They are generally not followed by credible Wall Street analysts capable of diagnosing the financial statements and voicing concern. The individual investor is largely on his or her own to do the leg work and many are totally incapable of doing so.