EDTA (was GIFT) 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.

Technology Stocks : EDTA (was GIFT)

EDTA 0.000200

+300.1%

Mar 7 3:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bagladdy who wrote (1030)	4/25/1997 7:57:00 AM
From: GRC	of 2383

Charles, My earlier post of the docket entry omitted one line. The reply briefs are due 8/8. The total additional delay is only two months. Also, damages continue to run up during the lawsuit. Thus, the delay isn't that significant. One interesting point is that usually the plaintif (GIFT) files the initial motion on claim interpretation. Then the defandants respond and the plaintiff replies. This favors the plaintiff since they get the last word. The judge's order doesn't state who files first. Previous posts said the defendant's go first, and I assumed she adopted an unusual procedure and let the defndant's go first. I have recently reviewed the order and hearing transcripts, and I must say that it is not clear to me who was to go first. If GIFT is supposed to go first, then there is no excuse for the delay. Does anyone know (or can they find out) which party was supposed to file on 4/21? Also, if GIFT was supposed to, why did they delay? GRC

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next