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.
Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)
AMD 233.54-1.8%Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (219763)12/8/2006 9:30:26 PM
From: economaniackRead Replies (1) of 275872
 
I am saying that FTC regulators rarely seek fines in Antitrust cases, and I can't imagine their pursuing such against AMD for actions taken by ATI before the acquisition. Your examples are not on point. Asbestos liability is a civil issue. Haliburton acquired the liability of Johns Mansville to the thousands of workers that had been injured by exposure to asbestos. They did not face government actions to remediate or punish the behavior of JM. Similarly a seller who knowingly sold contaminated land would indeed be legally liable, but in no case would the purchaser face criminal sanction for having been defrauded.

You don't seem to recognize the distinction between tort claims and potential fines imposed by a regulatory agency. I doubt AMD could undo the purchase at this point, but I suppose given enough evidence of wrongdoing by ATI they might try. More likely they would go after the ATI founder who presumably directly participated in any such violations, and has very deep pockets as well as now a huge block of AMD stock. I suppose one extra complication of all this is the potential impact on Orton, who would tie the behavior to AMD if it is proven and he remains in place.

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