William,
The way that proposition 211 is worded, a person who bought Intel because of the 3:1 split rumor could sue if the split does not happen. If their position is down from where they bought, they can claim they bought because of an employee's statement & they have now 'lost' money and they are therefore damaged. Further, the wording of prop. 211 forces the presumption of *guilt* and the entity sued *must* *prove* innocence.
I am not an attorney, but have seen cases where there was not even this much 'fact' to support a claim and the suing party won. This employee has put forth other statements as well to indicate where, at least part of, Intel's business is heading. This can easily be taken for a 'forward looking statement' from Intel - *even though* this employee is *not* an offical spokes person. This could make Intel liable under prop 211.
Until the vote has been taken and the results are known caution regarding any statement made should be the norm. Prop 211, which I have read in it's entirety, can hold liable *indivduals* for statements made which caused someone to make a purchase. This prop. opens the door for so many different approaches, I believe even someone who does not reside in California who makes a statement could cause a California company to be sued. This prop. is bad 'law' - IMHO - and should be defeated. Others have said the same.
While you may not like all the talk about prop. 211 and the legal implications to Intel, as a stockholder, I urge this employee to cease his statements that have *not* been published by the company. If the company has released this information, he should point us to that information. I do not want to lose money to an 'ambalance chasing' lawyer due to an employee's loose lips - however well intentioned.
Regards,
dmg- |
