Replies to post #39567 on Secure Point Technologies Inc (fka IMSCQ)

[Nowak488]

This is it... as Pat was saying.

If you don't have a reporting requirement, you fix the document that says you do.

[Implanting]

The question to be answered was the original filing a mistake or are they now changing the fact that Platinum owned more than 10% of IMSC stock in the original filing and now they say they don't?

How could that be the case if nothing changed with their share ownership? You can't just say we owned 10% before and now we own less than 10%.

[nealg]

Ted,

I wonder if there was some back room talk about what exactly was owed to whom and this was to clarify things before any deal could go forward. Or, this was an inconsistency that the lawyers found that needed to be clarified before a deal could be finalized. Or, maybe PP was looking at holding the deal up with some vague issues related to what their ownership really was and this was needed for them to say this is what it is. Or a combination of everything. As of right now, I am thinking the scrutiny that PP has gone under is probably a good thing for us common shareholders and wonder if the government looking into things was really related to issues with PP trying to get too much control over the company. I think this is a bit of news that is saying the sale of the company is progressing.

At least that is the way I am looking at it on first blush. Reasonable people can disagree. And I still can't get a good feel for what a buyout price would be relative to the present share price but I am more inclined to make a small short term bet right now