Ken, Refer to page 34 of the 1995 annual report. Section F. "Commitments and Contingencies."
There are two references to pending/active lawsuits. One explicit reference to Roger Billings and (Academy) of which as of December 1995 this company filed a petition to admend. (I.e., Novell won this one, so far). This is not the company Elmo referenced.
The "other" reference(s), "not named" in the report as well as Academy
all contain the CYA phrasing of:
"The company believes that the ultimate resolution of this legal proceeding will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."
Obviously, the company that Elmo references falls into the latter
category.
Also, regarding Gary Reback. I was reminded that Gary Reback works for the law firm, and is a partner with Sonsini (who is on the Novell board of directors). That would not "fly" now, would it?
What you and others might want to think about though, is how we can propagate this dialog over to say ... the Motley Fool, or other "high profile" sites, where these kinds of data points can be picked up upon by the media in general. Why? Because Dwight Vickers is correct with regard to "how tight" Noorda and Ashton et al. have this company sewed up with the institutions.
But, that doesn't preclude making Novell management's life as miserable as possible a viable option now, does it?
Joe <WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE "SALARY, PERIOD" TIED TO STOCK PERFORMANCE.
NOT JUST INCENTIVES. MARENGI (MR. ATTILA THE HUN, DO YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO DO THAT? I don't think so> |
