Re: ?/?/00 - [KERA] Keravision quietly files suit against John Does in Superior Court in CA (Santa Clara County, San Jose) but refuses to release a copy of the complaint
Part 1 of 2
=====
The following discussion is from the Yahoo KERA thread:
A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: Ozark58 (M/Missouri) 9/10/00 9:31 pm
Msg: 45422 of 45653
1) Intacs received the seal of approval from the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in April, 1999. This means that Intacs micro-inserts have been deemed safe and they perform the job they were designed to do.
2) There have been over 3,000 Intacs procedures performed to date since FDA approval.
3) There has never been any lawsuit filed against Keravision by any Intacs patient. Conversely, Lasik laser patients have filed dozens of lawsuits againsts Laser companies where millions of dollars hang in the balance.
4) Intacs are removable. If the patient is not satisfied with Intacs they can be removed with an easy 10 minute procedure and the eye most often returns to their pre-operative condition. Conversely, a mistake on a Lasik laser patient can never be reversed because a cornea flap has been sliced from the central optic zone and corneal tissue has been permanently removed by a laser beam.
5) A very high percentage of Intacs patients are reporting better than 20/20 vision. Several members of this board have personal experiences with Intacs and haved confirmed this statement.
6) KeraVision has trained over 600 doctors to do the Intacs procedure.
7) KeraVision has just completed the enrollment period for FDA phase IIIb test to extend the range of Intacs up to the minus 4.5 diopter range. Research and development is actively working to broaden the existing product range.
8) Over twenty million people who wear glasses or contact lens fall within the current Intacs range. KeraVision sells Intacs for about $450 per eye. You can do the math but don't forget to figure two eyes per person at $450 per eye.
9) KeraVision just announced a partnership with NovaMed and they have very large eye centers located in 5 major cities.
10) KeraVision has just launched (in September'00) their first full advertising campaign with TV, radio and print media ads in 3 major cities.
11) It is difficult to introduce a new product when the laser competition already has a marketing foothold. Over 1000 doctors and eye centers have already invested millions of dollars in laser machines and they must continue making their monthly payments for this equipment. They are not anxious to switch out of the laser business while still making payments on laser machines.
12) KeraVision has recently re-focused their marketing strategy to appeal to the eye glass wearer and the contacts lens wearer thereby opening a marketing niche that does not directly compete head to head with the Lasik laser market. Recent studys have found that the very low myoptic (eye glass and contact lens customers) are fearful of laser but are receptive to the safer and removable Intacs option.
The Intacs product has just started chipping away at this market with a superior product. KeraVision has about $30 million cash on hand and this is expected to last at least until the end of the year.
13) KeraVision will need to address their finacial position at this time. Options, in my opinion will be a corporate bond issue, bank or commerical paper loan, secondary stock offering, patent royalties, partnerships in foreign markets, additional partnerships in the U.S. Market, Merger or Pooling of Interests or a buyout from a major company.
14) This investment is risky and the rewards will be either totally astounding or a great disappointment. Each investor should make their own decisions from the facts and not from someone who is trying to drive the stock price down by pounding out distorted half truths on a stock message board.
KeraVision has invested 10 years and over $100 million dollars in their primary product of Intacs and a superior product like this is not going to go away.
All is my opinion of course.
Best regards,
Ozark
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: bogatiy (42/M/Manhattan, NY) 9/10/00 10:52 pm
Msg: 45424 of 45653
1. Numerous drugs received the FDA's approval, then were pulled. Do you trust your eyes to the FDA?
2. Most of the Intacs procedures were done during the study. After approval, and after the doctors stopped getting paid big bucks to recommend them, the recommendations stopped.
3. There will be lawsuits ... and that's for sure!
4. Intacs may be removeble, but even the FDA agrees the procedure isn't REVERSIBLE!!
5. How about those who had Intacs removed? Are they seeing any better now? Sure there are some successes, but plenty of failures. Are your eyes worth the risk? Any sane person will save thousands and just wear contacts ... which by the way provide instant vision better than Intacs every could/will at about $30 per pop (re: J&J's new product)
6. Keravision trained plenty of doctors, most of whom are staying away from Intacs now that they understand the risks!
7. KERAVISION will soon be history, so current studies aren't really important. No one wants the product now, so extending the range won't help.
8. Over 20 million people wear glasses, and aren't complaining, and certainly aren't going to spend $4000 to risk their eyesight. Especially when contacts provide the same benefit for $30.
9. Partnerships!! Ha, show me the MONEY!!! Partnerships are KERA managements' admittance they can't do it by themselves... in fact they are complete and utter FAILURES. Did you get that Mr. Loarie YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FAILURE IN EYECARE THAT I'VE COME ACROSS ... A MANAGEMENT FAILURE WHO PAYS HIMSELF EXHORBITANTLY AND SELLS STOCK TO BOOT!!!! BETTER GET IT WHILE YOU CAN ...
10. KERA vision is spending the remaining millions on another wasted marketing campaign. Hurrah, so the bankruptcy comes sooner, rather than later.
11. Sure blame it on someone else when KERA management has been completely ineffective, and continues to be so. KERA management is ineffective and basically worthless, and that's why they'll be gone soon.
12. Refocused marketing strategy? You mean they are finally admitting they had it wrong! Well, friend, they still have it wrong!
13. Yes, you're absolutely right, they are just about out of cash and need more to survive. But is any one stupid enough to give them another $60 million to blow through, without anything to show but hundreds of millions in lost market value!!!
14. KERA isn't just risky, it's stupid. Want to find a company that's headed for bankruptcy? Then look for the symbol KERA and you found it!
All is my opinion of course ...
By a talented financial analyst!!!
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45422 by Ozark58
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Bogatiy: BEING SUED!!!!
by: bogatiy (42/M/Manhattan, NY) 9/10/00 10:54 pm
Msg: 45425 of 45653
Yeah, right, I guess that's why I'm so talkative.
You can sue the bearer of truth!
So get on board ... KERA is headed to bankruptcy, management is apparently incompetent and has wasted millions (your millions if you own this stock), and no one wants stupid FRIGGIN' Intacs in their EYES.
See you at the big B!
=====
Re: A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: nakunata 9/10/00 11:12 pm
Msg: 45428 of 45653
Very good summary Ozark58.
I'd like to expand on one point if I may. The operation leave a scar. That means the eye can never go back to being without a scar. That is the ONLY reason the FDA will not allow Intacs to be labeled as reversible. However, on removal of Intacs ALL patients have returned to within 1/2 diopter of their original script, with most being able to wear their original glasses.
I could write pages on the debilitating effects of LASIK and PRK but suffice to say that the Council on Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (CRSQA) an industry oversight group funded by LASER companies and practitioners of LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS) has stated that there is an average 3% rate of debilitating side effects and an average 1% rate of vision threatening complications. It has been clearly established that these statistics DO NOT include an accurate count of those suffering from the most common harmful effects of LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS). In fact, even though you may be virtually incapacitated by multiple images, glare or dry eyes, if you are not left legally blind (20/200 BCVA) you will probably be counted as a LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS) success.
In contrast if you review the FDA approval documentstion for Intacs you will find that all of the UNMENTIONED side effects of LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS) were addressed and found to be nonevents for the Intac patient. Don't get me wrong, the procedure leaves a small percentage of patients (5%+-) every bit as dissatisfied (except for the 'vision threatening' aspect) as LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS) patients; the crucial difference being ... if you remove the Intacs the problems go away. With LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS) these people are, forgive the bluntness of the phrase, screwed for life.
In my opinion the biggest hurdle facing KVI is the damage that LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS) has done / will do to public perception of refractive surgery with Intacs. I think we've seen only the tip of that iceberg so far. As complications mount and the LASER REFRACTIVE SURGERY (LRS) population ages I expect this issue to loom much larger than it does now.
I believe reason and the desire to be rid of glasses & contacts will prevail and Intacs will eventually be a worldwide success.
Hanging 'til then & watching with my Intacs,
Phil
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45422 by Ozark58
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: Ozark58 (M/Missouri) 9/11/00 12:20 am
Msg: 45429 of 45653
1) No, but I trust the fact that thousands of people have gotten Intacs and are very happy with the results.
2) Nope, sorry you got that wrong too. There have been over 3,000 Intacs procedures performed after FDA approval. But there were more than a 1,000 Intacs procedures performed before FDA approval too.
3) Anyone can sue anyone anytime for any reason but the fact is, Intacs hasn’t had that problem.
4) “Reversible” is your word, I said “removable” and anyone should know that a refractive procedure can’t technically claim to be “reversible”. Shame on you.
5) If you remove the engine from your car would it run better? Your statement sounds equally absurd and makes no point.
6) What risks are those, you failed to mention them and what is source of your data in order for you to use the words “plenty” and “most”.
7) Over 3,000 people have wanted the product so far and KeraVision didn’t even advertise for the business. Let see now, your advice is to totally ignore studies done by marketing professionals, is that correct?
8) Where did you get your data that says people who wear glasses don’t complain? I would like a reference to that source. And, you alone have personally decided how much people are willing to spend for good eyesight?
9) Appears that you just wildly lashed out here. Nothing of substance to refute.
10) Would your alternative be to avoid a marketing campaign altogether? You didn’t specify how you would generate business.
11) And your recommendation is to just ignore market conditions?
12) Then tell us how it can be done right or are you just a Monday Morning Quarter Back.
13) I listed many options for financing, read them slowly.
14) Sounds like another opinion, we all have one....I won’t use the usual cliche....
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45424 by bogatiy
messages.yahoo.com
=====
INTACS: DON'T RISK YOUR SIGHT!!!!
by: bogatiy (42/M/Manhattan, NY) 9/11/00 10:05 am
Msg: 45437 of 45653
Don't listen to the three hypsters that lost money in KERA and got sucked into the maelstrom of getting Intacs.
Listen to your eye doctor. Not many of which will risk recommending Intacs.
They're painful, expensive, and for losers!
Don't be a loser ... JUST SAY NO TO INTACS!
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45415 by bogatiy
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/11/00 10:27 am
Msg: 45438 of 45653
<<There has never been any lawsuit filed against Keravision by any Intacs patient.>>
How do you know?
Keravision apparently has started a suit against Internet Posters, but have been keeping it as quiet as can be.
If they don't publicize a suit that they have brought themselves, what makes you think they would publicize that they have been sued?
Has anyone actually asked? (And if you do call to ask now, how about asking for a copy of the Complaint in the case they seem to have brought, so folks can see what it is all about).
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45422 by Ozark58
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: Ozark58 (M/Missouri) 9/11/00 10:39 am
Msg: 45439 of 45653
Pending ligation with possible material consequences have to be shown in their financial reports. There is none!
Conversely, Visx has them sprinkled all over their reports.
Ozark
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45438 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Re: A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/11/00 10:57 am
Msg: 45440 of 45653
<<Pending ligation with possible material consequences have to be shown in their financial reports. There is none!>>
No mention of the suit that they appear to have brought? I haven't read through their filings in a while, but is this really accurate?
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45439 by Ozark58
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: A Few Facts Rather than Distortion
by: Ozark58 (M/Missouri) 9/11/00 11:16 am
Msg: 45441 of 45653
I, like you, have only heard rumors of a Kera suit against message board posters. If it is true, then it probably didn't occur in time to get reported.
I remember someone on this board saying they talked to T. Loarie and that he mentioned possible litigation against a few board posters. If true, we will get words in Kera's next report.
Ozark
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45440 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Libel suit
by: byebyebogs (M/Goldsboro, NC) 9/11/00 11:25 am
Msg: 45442 of 45653
against lasikvision is underway by Kera. We'll soon learn who the old boy is. I don't mind someones opinion...up or down, yeah or nay...but lvision posted certifiable lies in an attempt to harm kera and its shareholders. Hope he enjoys the next year. Are you listening booger and "Doctor" wahahahahahaha sphinchole? Class action suits by shareholders against the likes of lasikvision and their asshole bosses and employers will be the next turn of events as shareholders get fed up with their manipulations. Fun huh? You bet.
messages.yahoo.com
=====
ozark & bigbird
by: nakunata 9/11/00 2:51 pm
Msg: 45447 of 45653
KVI is proceeding with legal action against people spreading misinformation on the internet. To verify call or email the company. I did, it was.
I would not consider proceeding with legal action against internet insects to be a material event requiring inclusion in the filings. Lawsuits against the company would material and be included; but, eturkey, you knew that didn't you, you little scamp?
BTA,
Phil
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: ozark & bigbird
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/11/00 3:27 pm
Msg: 45448 of 45653
<<To verify call or email the company.>>
I called and got the run-around. Mick Taylor referred me to the lawyer, (after several calls), and the lawyer refuses to send me the Complaint (a public document, by the way) without "checking" with management. Whether that was a line of BS, or they really will send it to me, I don't know. But it only takes 10 seconds to email it to me, so I suspect I got a line of BS.
<<Lawsuits against the company would material and be included>>
Correct, which is why I am puzzled as to why I haven't seen this. As I said, I haven't really paid that much attention to filings lately, but apparently know one else has seen it, so it doesn't appear as if this was disclosed.
With the company hemorrhaging money, and the lawfirm being Baker & McKenzie, I would guess this is going to cost them a few bucks....money that might be better spent elsewhere.
It is hard to consider whether the suit has merit or not if they won't give out the details.
My interest, however, is actually professional, and not related to KERA....I represent a cyberlibel defendant and have been following these suits and am interested in them due to the First Amendment ramifications (www.EricTurkewitz.com).
This is a developing area of the law, and there are many issues yet to be resolved. Watching how companies deal with these issues is, for me anyway, interesting.
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45447 by nakunata
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: ozark & bigbird
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/11/00 3:39 pm
Msg: 45449 of 45653
I read too quickly and mis-read what you wrote...... Let's try again:
<<I would not consider proceeding with legal action against internet insects to be a material event requiring inclusion in the filings. Lawsuits against the company would material and be included;>>
You would NOT consider a suit by the company to be material?? This, I don't understand. If it isn't material, they shouldn't waste time (and money) on it. These suits aren't cheap and you can be sure Baker & McKenzie aren't exactly doing this on a contingency.
If the complaint is serious enough to hire counsel for, then it is material. If it isn't then why do it?
Anyway, I would think shareholders would be very interested in how corporate funds are being spent at this point, given the continuing depletion of cash.
By the way, to see a list of these cyberlibel suits, you can go to www.cybersecuritieslaw.com.
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45447 by nakunata
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Eturkey, you can't be serious?
by: i_got_intacs (47/Alpharetta, GA) 9/11/00 4:04 pm
Msg: 45450 of 45653
<If the complaint is serious enough to hire counsel for, then it is material. If it isn't then why do it?>
Lots of reasons. Can't think of any? Here's a hint: you can't get "material" blood out of a stone (or a high school student). Go finish your homework before dinner.
This board gets more and more bizarre every day. There hasn't been anything worthwhile posted here since Collins was run off by all the schizos.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45449 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: ozark & bigbird
by: kerabou 9/11/00 4:08 pm
Msg: 45451 of 45653
eTurkey gobbled:
<If the complaint is serious enough to hire counsel for, then it is material. If it isn't then why do it?>
As an attorney, you should know that companies file suits all the time that are not considered material events. Why do it? To protect shareholder value. To protect the Intacs brand. To deter other libelous posters. We're not talking about people simply expressing their opinions here. We're talking about intentional, systematic deception designed to drive KERA's price down.
I'm a staunch advocate of free speech and civil liberties, but false claims of Intacs complications--from surgery that never occurred--is libel, pure and simple. Libel solely for the purpose of padding short seller's wallets. Or perhaps, protecting LASIK practices. We'll know the facts eventually, I hope.
kerabou
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45449 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: ozark & bigbird
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/11/00 4:26 pm
Msg: 45452 of 45653
<<To protect the Intacs brand. To deter other libelous posters. We're not talking about people simply expressing their opinions here. We're talking about intentional, systematic deception designed to drive KERA's price down.>>
Have you seen the Complaint?
Without seeing the Complaint, it is mere speculation as to what the suit is about. The only thing we can logically conclude is that it will cost them money to bring it.
If it is against internet posters only, then it is likely the suit will cost them more money than they will ever recover (or at least, that is the history of these suits thus far).
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45451 by kerabou
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: ozark & bigbird
by: radiola16 (52/M/Connecticut) 9/11/00 5:26 pm
Msg: 45461 of 45653
Turkey, you need Intacs! Read what KeraBou said again
slowly: "To protect the Intacs brand. To deter other libelous posters"
Where did the issue of money come up in the 'Bou's post? Maybe it is not about financial restitution?
Perhaps it is matter of establishing a line in the
sand demarcing "freedom of speech" and otherwise
harmful slander?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45452 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: ozark & bigbird
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/11/00 5:59 pm
Msg: 45464 of 45653
<<Read what KeraBou said again
slowly: "To protect the Intacs brand. To deter other libelous posters"
>>
I read what he wrote...what I could not read is the actual Complaint which would tell you exactly what the suit was for, as opposed to message board speculation.
<<Perhaps it is matter of establishing a line in the sand demarcing "freedom of speech" and otherwise harmful slander? >>
Perhaps, but if the company goes bankrupt while they preserve their good name, they haven't really accomplished much, have they?
Is this the best use of company resources at a cash strapped time? If the Complaint was soundly based, you would think they would willingly make it public.
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45461 by radiola16
=====
Re: ozark & bigbird
by: radiola16 (52/M/Connecticut) 9/11/00 6:07 pm
Msg: 45465 of 45653
If the Complaint was soundly based, you would think they would willingly make it public.
--ETurkey
If the complaint is real, it is already part of
the public record.. As an attorney, it should be
easy for you to persue this matter and obtain
a copy of the complaints through the normal channels.
I believe you stated you had some professional interest
in the suit, if it exists?
The BXM investors did exactly that when they learned
that BioMatrix had filed suit against several bashers
on the BXM Yahoo! board. In fact, it was the interested
investors who published the names of those being
sued.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45464 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Lawsuits against libelous posters
by: kerabou 9/11/00 7:01 pm
Msg: 45473 of 45653
ETurkey wrote:
<I read what he wrote...what I could not read is the actual Complaint which would tell you exactly what the suit was for, as opposed to message board speculation.>
You seem to be doing quite a bit a speculation yourself. No, I haven't seen the complaint. But I have seen, firsthand on this board, the kind of libelous activity KERA says they're going after. No matter how expensive KERA's law firm is, the costs will be insignificant compared to the millions they're spending on advertising, and the potential loss of business caused by damage to the Intacs brand. If they don't protect their product, who will?
ETurkey, you seem to have an agenda with regard to KERA, or else why do you regularly spread FUD on this board? Do you have a short position you're trying to protect?
I have an agenda, but I make no secret of it: a major chunk of my retirement is invested in KERA, which I expect will make me quite comfortable in 25 years. But you don't see me spreading doubt on the VISX board. Why are you here, ETurkey?
kerabou
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45464 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Lawsuits against libelous posters
by: bogatiy (42/M/Manhattan, NY) 9/11/00 7:09 pm
Msg: 45475 of 45653
No one could possible damage Intacs branding more that KERA management have done themselves!
Losers running a potentially good product right down into the dirt!!! Of course in their hands gold would soon become dirt!
So much for Intacs ... hey, don't like my opinions ... SUE ME!!!!
Ha ha ha ha BAH ha ha ha ha!
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45473 by kerabou
messages.yahoo.com |
