RE: found itmhp2002: "so does a reverse split basically mean you are screwed?"
Normally not good a good thing. At least, in this case, there are virtually no shares outstanding plus there is the possibility of a cash settlement re: lawsuit.
On the other hand, I thought the same thing after Rowland took over the company following the 20:1 rollback. I figured the only way he could screw up a setup like that was if he were completely incompetent.
Unfortunately, it turns out that this was indeed the case!!!
Here's my post from long ago:
SUBJECT: well . . . Posted By: BlindBoy
Post Time: 5/7/03 11:03
In the wake of a 20:1 rollback, replacement of management, and successfully bringing in substantial financing, this would be a "first" if it tanked for good without ever taking a "run". That
so does a reverse split basically mean you are screwed
is, restructuring, management changes, and capital infusion have always resulted in some sort of market runs in all the stocks I've ever seen.
I can't believe the new management would go through all this effort for nothing, or that they'd be "complete incompetents". Unless they really "are" incompetents, this "should" be a buying opportunity.