"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message

As I stated, none of your posits is true.

You said:

I wouldn't "chime in" on this issue. I have.

You said I had been instructed by legal counsel not to talk about this
issue. I haven't.


But, you have been sat down and told what you can say, what you cannot
say and what questions to avoid altogether.


Nope. Never.






No one got rich off the backs of anyone. The deals you reference had to
do with the buying and selling of privately held stock. As far as I know,
no one has been indicted in connection with the deals, and no working men
or women lost a penny or any insurance coverage because of them. Those
who bought and sold back their shares as individuals shouldn't have done
so, and the profits they made have been paid back to the company, so far
as I know, except in one case, which I believe is being pursued as a
civil matter. So, you were "wrong" on that, too.


That's because they got caught and had to disgourge their ill gotten
gains.


Yes, the new management team forced the issue, and the money was returned.
Too bad that doesn't happen at other US corporations, eh?




End of discussion. Now, if it gives you a woody to keep bring this up, go
for it, but, as I stated, you were wrong on all your posits.


No, the stain of this affair will forever haunt Ullico and taint its
image.

Naw. The company has recovered, and its primary investment vehicle is
doing better than ever. It is divesting itself of many of its insurance
offerings, though, but that is unrelated.

By the way, I stopped consulting at Ullico a year ago. I have no business
relationship whatsoever with that company. The investment company I
consult for now is much larger. Maintaining a relationship with both would
have been a conflict of interest.

You got thrown out with the dirty water. I guess you were stained.