Lou,
In one of your rambling posts, you did suggest that the two parties may settle. But, not once did you ever suggest that LNET would pay $16 million to settle the case. It means that it was material enough for LNET to pay more money to settle the case (using accounting to amortize the payout to lessen the blow) than to risk a negative outcome in the courts.
Nevertheless, I did not expect this outcome and posted that I see this as a positive for LNET.
Now, you also suggested that the stock's decline was due to small cap market's decline and illiquidity in LNET stock. You suggested that these factors had sent the stock from $12 to $10 (during your buying spree, which I told you was ill-advised given a $6 buying price was much more logical). Instead, you ignored me and predicted that the stock would go much higher, citing an $18 price target from Paine Webber and Morgan Stanley (BTW, you failed to mention that Chris Dixon at PW had a similar price appreciation scenario with Livent prior to the FRAUD charges halted the stock). You also suggested that I should enjoy the short-term drop because I was going to suffer in six months.
Well, Lou, we are half way to your six months and the stock is down another 30% (a total of 42% since your earliest predictions). You also have the remarkable JANCO Partners humping LNET on the merits of a marriage of LNET and ONCO (which is completely illogical and unfounded!).
Lou, if you believe in this concept, then why don't you buy some more down here to average down your losses in this stock?
Tokyo
Tokyo |
