| INSP's 10-K clearly states that the derivative suit is against the officers and directors and does not seek financial penalties against INSP itself. According to the 10-K, INSP's potential liability in this case rests upon whether or not it is required to indemnify any of its officers and directors, for which a determination has not yet been made. The first part of the lawsuit-about insiders selling INSP stock when they knew all along that the internet advertising market was doomed to fail, is, in my opinion, b.s.. This argument could be brought against any public internet advertising company. Many staked their careers and fortunes upon the belief that internet advertising was viable. It's impossible to prove that INSP insiders knew the internet advertising industry was going to fail and that, with this knowledge, they then acted in bad faith. This is a very silly argument. The second charge--that INSP had no legitimate reason to pursue GO2NET as an acquisition, is equally ridiculous. It is obvious they wanted GO2NET's broadband expertise and connections, which management stated at the time of the merger. About the "pooling of interests" conflict, I have no opinion about. Basically, I believe this lawsuit is frivolous with the possible exception of the "pooling of interests" charge. As far as I know, the merger has not lost its tax-free status, so this point will probably be moot. |
