I am disappointed in GIFT's brief. However, I am holding the
shares I have, rather than dumping them at these prices.
GIFT asked for an extension of time to respond to the Def. briefs,
presumably because they were lengthy. However, the response filed
did not require much time. GIFT's brief contained very few cites
to the record, which are time consuming. Also, it only generally
responded to the points made by the Defs. General responses (like
GIFT's) are not as time consuming as specific counter arguments.
Judges don't like to extend deadlines, and like it even less when
the response shouldn't have required much time.
Second, if the spelling mistakes really were in the brief as filed
it suggests a certain carelessness. Worse, it distracts the judge
from the point the brief is making and causes her to focus on the
mistakes rather than the substance of the brief.
The defendants made specific arguments and pointed to specific
facts in their briefs. However, as I said in my earlier posts I
thought each point could be effectively countered by a short but
direct argument. Unfortunately, the GIFT brief did not directly
counter the arguments. The "don't consider it at all because its
irrelevant" type of argument suggests to the reader there are no
good specific arguments.
It appears that GIFT's attorney chose to hold back his counter-
arguments for the actual hearing. I think that is a big mistake.
the Judge is left with a one-sided view going into the hearing and
GIFT will have to change her mind. That is much more difficult
than if she came in liking GIFTs position or at least being unsure.
GIFT's brief had several passages that could only be understood by
re-reading the Def's. briefs. Of course, you don't want the judge
to re-read the other guys brief. She should be directed to the
points GIFT was making.
Also, no law requires a hearing (I know of at least one judge who
does not grant Markman hearings, and relies strictly on the
briefs). This judge has suggested there will be a hearing, so this
is a small risk, but she can always say it is not needed. Why run
the risk?
The GIFT brief looks like one written by an attorney who either
doesn't have the time to do a proper job, or has a client who won't
pay for a proper job. I have not received financial statements
from GIFT as long as I have been a shareholder, so I can only
speculate as to whether and how the attorney is being paid. If
anyone has received a statement, please post it. |
