Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) 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.

Technology Stocks : Hewlett-Packard (HPQ)

HPQ 26.28

+0.4%

Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Night Writer who wrote (4062)	7/18/2007 8:47:09 PM
From: Oeconomicus	of 4345

The claim predates the spin-off, so the plaintiff(s) can go after HP to the extent the liability can't be confined to a subsidiary entity level, as appears to be the case here. Philips would not be on the hook unless they had really really bad lawyers handling the acquisition - the buyer would normally be indemnified for these sorts of things. I also wonder whether the spin-off included any cross-indemnifications so that Agilent, with deep enough pockets by itself, would end up paying most or all of any final damages. I note, BTW, that there is no claim that any patient was injured as a result of these defective devices, that HP already settled with the federal government (likely one of the larger customers for these devices) for only $7 million, and that HP has already settled the employment liability (wrongful termination) case. In spite of the grandly self-promotional (hyperbolic?) "hundreds of millions of dollars" figure the plaintiff and the author of this article are throwing around, I don't see any significant impact on HP from this.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next