Richard
OK, now you're on my turf (legal). You won't get any announcement from the SEC until the legal proceedings are resolved one way or the other. The SEC almost never acts in a way that would influence the outcome of a legal proceeding. Also, the SEC loves this kind of proceeding. They can sit back and see what, if any, disclosures are made in the suit. Then, without much effort on its part, it can either exonerate or condemn the company on facts and evidence it didn't have to exert itself to ascertain.
Now, from the guy who's been accused of being "negative" about Radisys. If the only factors affecting Radisys were those of the law suit I'd buy a million shares. This is a suit alleging the unfair termination of employment. It was brought in a state court. The allegations alleging that the plaintiff was fired because he blew the whistle on the company cooking the books were extremely general. The plaintiff, therefore, said he would amend his complaint to be more specific. He has not amended his complaint.
The allegations relating to the company cooking the books was an attempt to get the company to settle rather than face the adverse publicity of the law suit. The plaintiff even leaked the facts to Barron's to precipitate an article extremely critical of the company. (The Monday after the article came out, Radisys started a plunge that, eventually, took 25 points off the stock.) Yet, the company never settled.
The plaintiff is suing for $2 million or more. Glen Meyers, alone, lost $6 million on the drop in the value of his stock. The executives, as a group, lost $21 million on the drop. If the allegations were true, it seems the company would have settled out of court rather than face the damage to their stock's value--IF they thought the suit had any merit.
Now, add the fact that Price, Waterhouse gave the company's books an unqualified OK.
Whatever detriment the law suit has on the company's stock is solely the result of short sellers and their friends in the media making a big deal out of unproved, unsubstantiated and unlikely allegations by a pissed ex-employee. Don't mistake the legal proceedings as a frontal attack in a federal court, alleging that the company violated SEC rules and/or regulations. It has never been that kind of suit.
The "negative" dude,
Burt |
