SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc. Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Non-Tech : SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc.

SLJB 0.000001000

-90.0%

Jun 4 9:43 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: MrGoodBuddy who wrote (1532)	5/18/2007 5:36:48 PM
From: scion	of 1681

janniebegood summarizes Drago v Vucicevich well. Posted by: janniebgood In reply to: ed53wa who wrote msg# 267674 Date:5/18/2007 3:01:35 PM Post #of 267751 Where's the judgement in the Drago case? Oh, continued? Ed, the "judgment" in the Drago case was NOT continued. There never was a judgment. There was merely a default on the part of the defendants for failing to answer the complaint within the prescribed time. The judge, after her earlier pronouncement that there would be no additional extensions for time to answer the complaint, generously granted an extension to the defendants to give them extra time to answer the lawsuit as originally required, at the request of defendants due to having to retain additional counsel to represent them. Otherwise, there most likely would have been a default judgment granted. But I can say with certainty that it is MUCH better for the plaintiffs that the defendants will now be required by the court to produce documentary and testimonial evidence (as will the named plaintiffs) by way of the discovery procedures (interrogatories, requests for admissions, depositions and requests to produce documents) mandated by the court. And as for those who contend that this lawsuit is premature or is a "joke" because it was filed before the outcome of the OSC proceedings, one is not dependent upon the other. The fact that these attorneys brought a lawsuit when they did demonstrates their confidence in the case against the defendants. They are extremely competent and perfectly qualified attorneys to undertake a securities fraud lawsuit such as the Drago case. You or others might wish to check the Vianale website for their qualifications and experience: vianalelaw.com I hope you find this helpful. investorshub.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next