Sequans, the investors board 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 : Sequans, the investors board

SQNS 5.970

-15.7%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: frmrVZguy who wrote (254)

12/7/2019 8:27:27 PM

From: frmrVZguy

of 290

Midnight Update on Renner. Last notice was November see post 254. New Discovery proceeds. This means financial risk off-the-table as I stated last post on Renner.

It also means Plaintiff legal billings continue - that's one way to earn ROI on a failing investment.
I continue to wonder if their expenses are paid by the UNNAMED DEFENDANT as a cheap harassment tactic.
If SQNS wanted, they could point to my years-old filings which have passed legal scrutiny to say to the Plaintiff:

'If this armchair investigator could find all these facts, why couldn't you? Why did you invest at the highest share price when there was so much risk? Why didn't you know when it's your duty to know?"

I don't see any way Plaintiff wins even though it is clear from facts that GK failed disclosures. The case rests on whether the Plaintiff is damaged and GK is liable. Both tests must be answered Yes IMO.
But Plaintiff failed DD and is responsible to investors for failing DD. Again, IMO.
---------------

pacermonitor.com

Docket last updated: 12/06/2019 11:59 PM EST

Friday, December 06, 2019
		minutes Status Conference Order on Motion for Discovery Fri 12/06 3:46 PM Minute Entry and Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara: An in person Status Conference was held on 12/05/2019. Counsel for both sides were present. For the reasons stated on the record, the motion for discovery63 is granted and what the Court construes to be a motion for a protective order64 is denied. Discovery shall proceed. The parties should submit a joint discovery schedule plan for the Court's review by 12/20/2019 . So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/06/2019. (FTR Log #11:10-11:32.) (Guo, Alicia)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next