Class Action Suit Filed

Posts: 3 · New Forum Member Joined: May 20, 2006 Posts: 3

Can you give links or info about bloomberg's disclosure claim and statements in the quiet period prior to the IPO?

Posts: 4 · New Forum Member Joined: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 4

Yes this is my first posting, but I have been lurking for quite a while.

I am a VG stock owner who purchased on the IPO and added to my position afterwards.

Yes, I am losing money at the current price.

Yes, I know the risk I took.

I had spent over 13 years in the financial world, with the last several at Bear Stearns and knew this was a very risky gamble, but I felt like doing it anyway, knowing I could afford to lose all my investment and be OK.

What is the story with the cry babies from the Vonage forum that think they are entitled to participate in admittedly risky IPO as long as they don't lose money. One lady, was quoted in the press from this stock forum complaining that 1) she wanted 5000 shares and only got 1,300 shares and 2) those 1,300 shares had the nerve to decline in price, and therefore shouldn't have to pay for it. Yes, I read the stock allocation thread and see that several people also only got 1,300 out of 5,000. Consider that a blessing. I really wonder if they understand that if they flipped the stock, as they likely wanted to do (because if they were long-term investors they wouldn't be crying, but rather would be sitting there patiently for long-term appreciation) they would need to pay for their shares before they could get their sales proceeds, which means you would have to pay between $80,000 (if it came at $16 a share) or $90,000 (if priced at $18/share). The way those people are whining they likely don't have $80-90mm to risk/play with.

The fact the institutional investors were not interested was a big clue. Having been in the business I know that there are great IPO's, good IPO's and bad IPO's. If a client is going to get the good and great IPO's they have to be willing to take the bad ones and hopefully scratch them or lose very little. That is the deal. The company going public makes money, the institution gets their underwriting fees, the stockbroker makes his/her commission and often the customer makes money--but 3 out of 4 ain't bad the thinking often goes.

Vonage got what it needed, a cash infusion. Hopefully they will use it to increase business and therefore profits. Let's let them use it so we can all make some money. The worst thing we can do is get some fat cat lawyers rich at the expense of us and Vonage. Sure we may well and after lawyers fees get 10 cents on the dollar and really hurt VG's chances of becoming profitable (one out of three win that way).

I went through the online process to sign up for the IPO and know that even if the prospectus link did not work the first time it did work many of the other times I logged in, plus you could just go to Vonage's site to download it, so that is a lame excuse to try and get out of this investment.

For the person that thought the IPO would be priced at $13, well if you took a moment to read the expected price range you would have known of the 16-18 dollar range, so silly you.

Posts: 31 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 31

1invester wrote:

Yes this is my first posting, but I have been lurking for quite a while.

I am a VG stock owner who purchased on the IPO and added to my position afterwards.

Yes, I am losing money at the current price.

Yes, I know the risk I took.

I had spent over 13 years in the financial world, with the last several at Bear Stearns and knew this was a very risky gamble, but I felt like doing it anyway, knowing I could afford to lose all my investment and be OK.

What is the story with the cry babies from the Vonage forum that think they are entitled to participate in admittedly risky IPO as long as they don't lose money. One lady, was quoted in the press from this stock forum complaining that 1) she wanted 5000 shares and only got 1,300 shares and 2) those 1,300 shares had the nerve to decline in price, and therefore shouldn't have to pay for it. Yes, I read the stock allocation thread and see that several people also only got 1,300 out of 5,000. Consider that a blessing. I really wonder if they understand that if they flipped the stock, as they likely wanted to do (because if they were long-term investors they wouldn't be crying, but rather would be sitting there patiently for long-term appreciation) they would need to pay for their shares before they could get their sales proceeds, which means you would have to pay between $80,000 (if it came at $16 a share) or $90,000 (if priced at $18/share). The way those people are whining they likely don't have $80-90mm to risk/play with.

The fact the institutional investors were not interested was a big clue. Having been in the business I know that there are great IPO's, good IPO's and bad IPO's. If a client is going to get the good and great IPO's they have to be willing to take the bad ones and hopefully scratch them or lose very little. That is the deal. The company going public makes money, the institution gets their underwriting fees, the stockbroker makes his/her commission and often the customer makes money--but 3 out of 4 ain't bad the thinking often goes.

Vonage got what it needed, a cash infusion. Hopefully they will use it to increase business and therefore profits. Let's let them use it so we can all make some money. The worst thing we can do is get some fat cat lawyers rich at the expense of us and Vonage. Sure we may well and after lawyers fees get 10 cents on the dollar and really hurt VG's chances of becoming profitable (one out of three win that way).

I went through the online process to sign up for the IPO and know that even if the prospectus link did not work the first time it did work many of the other times I logged in, plus you could just go to Vonage's site to download it, so that is a lame excuse to try and get out of this investment.

For the person that thought the IPO would be priced at $13, well if you took a moment to read the expected price range you would have known of the 16-18 dollar range, so silly you.

kudos, you are a model "victim".

As for the rest of us, we don't appreciate the treatment. The underwriters priced this thing in concert with Vonage at $17 a share and with a few 1000 shares being traded, it went into a free-fall. Coincidence?

There is a reason that this is being called the worst IPO of the past few years...this smells rotten, and I am glad that the vultures (lawyers) are swarming.

I would rather get 10 cents on the dollar than the shaft that Vonage and the Underwriters gave us. Its the principle.

VG and the underwriters could have called a REDO - they still can - but rest assured, this mess is not going to go away.

Posts: 4 · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject:

If you read the lawsuit, it says:

"According to the Complaint, these Company insiders, desperate to execute an exit strategy for themselves, embarked on an illegal course of conduct to sell shares of the Company in a public market."

If this is truel, and the company stock tanked because of it... it is called "insider trading". Didn't the market have to stop trading Enron because of this?

I bought and sold my stock and I will accept my losses... but if there is evidence of "insider trading"... you can say "bye bye" to Vonage.

Posts: 4 · New Forum Member Joined: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 4

Vonage needs customers and it is cheaper to keep existing ones than shopping for new ones. They really can't afford to screw customers. The quality of the Underwriters involved indicates that they did not intentionally set out to screw their customers nor Vonage's customers. The deal was over subscribed, which would imply the pricing as fair at that moment. It appears the institutional investors flipped the stock and the short sellers added to the momentum.

Two questions that I have not see explored are: "Who was behind the excessive bad press prior to the IPO?" and "What is the "short interest" in this stock?" For a stock to drop like it did it was more than investors flipping their shares. There had to be a very large volume of short selling going on. I have not looked into it yet. It makes total sense for the Pro's to short the stock, which they didn't like anyway--a stock that has nothing but debt and poor fundamentals (yet a really good technology-yes I like the product). They know that about 14% was purchase by mostly people that don't know the first thing about trading (not investing in) stocks -- Vonage customers. Brilliant strategy. Create some panic selling by those that don't really understand the game, make Vonage look evil and alienate its most important asset--its customer. Then the short sells can buy it back at much lower price.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could let Vonage do its thing, build its customer base give good reason for the stock to appreciate and cause a short covering rally?

Posts: 243 · Vonage Forum Master Joined: Jan 18, 2004 Posts: 243

Now that would be sweet! Very Happy

Posts: 2251 · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject:

Guys: Can I ask that we bring a level of professionalism and courtesy to this thread/forum before I start to lock things down and ban some people?

Thank you,

Dan

Posts: 4 · New Forum Member Joined: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 4

BMoore wrote:

If you read the lawsuit, it says:

"According to the Complaint, these Company insiders, desperate to execute an exit strategy for themselves, embarked on an illegal course of conduct to sell shares of the Company in a public market."

If this is truel, and the company stock tanked because of it... it is called "insider trading". Didn't the market have to stop trading Enron because of this?

I bought and sold my stock and I will accept my losses... but if there is evidence of "insider trading"... you can say "bye bye" to Vonage.

BMoore, the insiders can't sell their share for six months, if you are referring to the officers of Vonage. If you are referring to insider information acted upon by the investment bankers that is another matter. But, if the information that was acted upon was in the prospectus then it is not insider trading.

Yes, going public can be an exit strategy for those with ownership in a privately owned company. This was suggest by the press well before the IPO. So if that is the case they have 6 months to kick up the stock price to start maximizing their potential profits.

Posts: 4 · New Forum Member Joined: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 4

One realistic thing Vonage can do to keep customers and create goodwill would be to offer customers who bought or own the stock dividends in to form of discounted service, rebates, coupons, or upgrades. Again it is cheaper to keep customer than find new ones.

Posts: 16 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: May 31, 2006 Posts: 16

kciscool wrote:

It has begun... Twisted Evil

Press Release Source: Motley Rice LLC

Investor Alert: Motley Rice LLC Files Suit against Vonage Holdings Corp. and Encourages Investors to Explore Legal Options
Friday June 2, 6:35 pm ET

Bwahahahahahahaha! You think these bottomfeeders have a case? Not a chance in h-e-double-hockey-sticks. Do you know what this is? These guys see a schooling pack of suckers and want to drain your wallets of more money. How much are you willing to bet that to become party to any potential class-action suit that is filed that you will need to pony up $500 - $1000 in "advance" of any settlement fom Vonage? Figure that even if 1% of you fools to kick in $1000 that a firm can do $10,000 worth of billable hours and pocket nearly a quarter million once the case is thrown out.

Cowboy UP!