July 14. 2003 by Del.

Free & Custom Excel Templates

I’ve always wondered about salability of templates - I guess here is the model.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

July 14. 2003 by Del.

Big news item but the research only began in April and is expected to last 3 1/2 years! Interesting note about TIA name change from “Total” to “Terrorism” hmmm!

InformationWeek > Privacy > “Privacy Appliance” Seeks To Harness Government Snooping > July 14, 2003: “A researcher is working on a way for the government’s Terrorism Information Awareness system to work without trampling individual rights.

By Matthew Fordahl, AP Technology Writer

PALO ALTO, Calif. (AP) — The Pentagon’s plan to sniff out terrorists from a sea of personal data collected by the government, banks, airlines, credit card companies and other sources has been criticized as the most sweeping invasion of privacy in history.

But Teresa Lunt believes that the much-maligned Terrorism Information Awareness system can work without stomping on individual rights. The researcher has proposed–and the government is funding–the creation of a device that could watch and rein in the watchers.

Civil libertarians aren’t so sure about Lunt’s so-called privacy appliance, which is being developed at the famed Palo Alto Research Center, now a subsidiary of Xerox Corp., under a $3.5 million, 3-1/2-year contract awarded in April. Critics question whether it will work, and if it does, whether clever snoops can bypass it.

‘One of my civil liberties nightmares is that you have a system that sounds very good with a privacy appliance, but it’s got some sort of a breaker switch that in an emergency is shut off,’ said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Lunt’s appliance is being developed under Project Genisys, one branch of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s wide-ranging TIA program.

The appliance would be controlled by whomever owns the data, Lunt says. With the owner’s permission, government analysts would submit queries to the appliances, which would filter out identif”

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

July 14. 2003 by Del.

What is the duty of a BOD - to obtain maximum value for stockholders or to protect the company? Obviously there are conflicting responsibilities where a company’s major shareholder’s / management wishes are at odds with shareholders who will be cashed out when the deal is done. Interesting goverance issue - others also play a part: communities who wish for stability in their local employment opportunities, tax base, etc. And even universities which may benefit from financial gains from stock sales.

Clayton Homes, Inc. Issues Letter to Stockholders: “Clayton Homes, Inc. Issues Letter to Stockholders

Sunday July 13, 9:46 pm ET

KNOXVILLE, Tenn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–July 13, 2003–Clayton Homes, Inc. (NYSE: CMH - News):

Dear Fellow Stockholders:

We would like to eliminate any confusion surrounding Cerberus Capital Management’s expression of interest in the company three business days prior to the stockholders vote on the Berkshire Hathaway offer to acquire Clayton Homes. Since the vote is scheduled for Wednesday of this week, we want to provide you with the current facts.

Some would have you believe that there is now, or that there will be, a higher offer for your stock. The fact is, there is no offer–not from Cerberus or from anyone other than Berkshire–despite the fact that since announcement of the Berkshire Hathaway offer on April 1, 2003, it has been public knowledge that superior offers could be considered by our board. I repeat, there is only one offer on the table–the Berkshire Hathaway offer of $12.50 per share in cash.

Interestingly Cerberus waited until late last Thursday to advise the company that they were considering making a proposal that could provide greater value to our stockholders than the Berkshire Hathaway transaction. Cerberus is a company that specializes in acquiring the debt and other assets of distressed companies and is acting in its own best interests. First and foremost, Cerberus has not made any sort of binding offer for our company. Cerberus simply faxed, without any prior communication, a brief letter indicating that they wanted to perform due diligence, and possibly make a superior offer to that of Berkshire.

Why did a company with a significant new investment in a competing finance company (Conseco) wait until three business days before the vote on the merger to publicly state its”

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »