Charles B. Kramer...
Several comments about your post.
Interesting in several ways -- for instance, that you passed along the fact of the dismissal, which is public information, but without comment.
Yes it is public information. However, you won't see INVT putting out a PR announcing the dismissal. I wanted to see it published.
Maybe INVT agreed to dismiss as long as the defendants didn't comment on the dismissal.
Nope. No deals were cut. In fact, I haven't had any contact with INVT.
But the case looks like it never got off the ground -- no surprise, but good to know.
No, the case never did get off the ground. The plain truth is that INVT never had a case to begin with. IMO, they simply decided to cut their losses with respect to litigation.
I don't doubt that there are people who deliberately try to sink a stock price by working in coordination with others to spread false info -- and that's illegal.
Sorry, but I disagree. In fact, I am hard pressed to find any pending litigation at the SEC's website that involves some kind of "bashing/shorting" scheme.
sometimes that fact is used to try to intimidate people -- like me -- who act individually just by expressing their opinion, which is LEGAL. You know, First Amendment, market place of ideas, like that.
Clearly, the intent of INVT's lawsuit was to chill dissenting opinion. And to a certain extent, it worked.
Diz-
PS: What did you think of the "lock-up" agreement? |
