SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Biotech / Medical : Pluvia vs. Westergaard

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Pluvia who wrote (1147)9/17/1997 9:50:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo   of 1267
 
Pluvia, it's called "rattling the cage". If you get served with a civil complaint, that's a whole different ballgame. I'm assuming that hasn't happened yet. That's not to say it won't happen, but it seems that despite all the allegations, at this point they're coming at you with a lawyer and saying "stop it."

I'm not an attorney, but if you haven't gotten one yet, please do and listen to his or her advice. Your counsel will be both your sword and your shield and will know exactly how to thrust and parry against all parties.

That said...

Info on the firm and the attorney should be available at a good public library in the reference section. Off the top of my head, I forget what the directory is called, but the reference librarian will probably be familiar with it.

I'm also wondering why PLSIA counsel did not send this letter earlier.

The date is 9/9/97 and yet Mr. Brockington alleges that:

(A) "the statements have been made over a period of several months".

and

(B) "All of these statements have had a severe negative impact on the price of the Company's publicly traded securities, damaging both the Company and its shareholders."

Which leads me to the question - if this is true, what action did the management of PLSIA and its Board of Directors take to protect the interests of its shareholders prior to hiring John Westergaard and prior to sending this letter, dated 9/9/97, given the fact that there were actions alleged to have occured which in the words of its own counsel "had a severe negative impact"?

What did they do? It's a very simple question. In that note, I see Mr. Brokington makes no reference to any prior contact between legal representation of PLSIA and Pluvia. What courses were taken to find the identity of Pluvia? To the best of my recollection, John Westergaard stated on his own website that the "Pluvia bounty" was not undertaken at the behest PLSIA. So, given the duty owed to shareholders, what reasonable action did PLSIA take once they bacame aware of the alleged activity given the seriousness of the damage they allege occurred?

Don't know.

Good trading,

Tom
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext