Georgia Bard's Corner Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Georgia Bard's Corner

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ga Bard who wrote (6643)	7/5/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) of 9440

I don't think that's quite how the ruling will be interpreted. My take is that it'll act to prevent frivolous class action suits. Say a company announces that its new product will be out be then end of the quarter, offers a safe harbor clause, all the rest. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the product doesn't appear on schedule, and the stock suffers as a result. Shareholders sue. Should this be allowed? If the precedent set here holds, the answer will be no: plaintiffs will be obliged to prove that the company knew the product wouldn't be released on time, but announced that it would be despite that. Seems reasonable enough to me, and a step in the right direction. What's needed is for both shareholders and companies to stop bringing meritless suits. They do no one any good.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next