JDN: You said it better than I could have because you called these sleaze bags exactly what they are. These corporate equivalents of ambulance chasers or lawyers who advertise on TV are the lowest forms of life. They get hold of one of two people who bought a stock only for a fast pop [note I do not use the term 'investor'] who cry like babies when what they wanted to happen did not come to pass: with CPQ, racing to the moon.
Looking at the time period covered in the suit, this is when there was much attention and speculation on CPQ's internet plans. First waiting for CPQ's big internet announcement. Next, CPQ's statement Alta Vista would be spun-off in an IPO, etc. etc. The price performance of CPQ during mid/late January through the later part of February can not be looked at purely in terms of CPQ's sales and earnings but must be looked at in the light of CPQ's push to become and internet company--and people buying on this.
To make an issue of CPQ's 1Q is to ignore all previous 1Qs for CPQ. This has traditionally been the weakest. Maybe these lawyers--and their crying class-action clients--do not know enough about CPQ to realize this.
I hope these legal cases get dropped. The only things one can know for sure is that it will cost CPQ money paying their lawyers to defend themselves; the lawyers representing people in the class action will make *lots* of money; the people in the class action themselves will get next to nothing [if they "win"], literally pennies on the dollar; these same people will ultimately be disgusted not with CPQ but with their lawyers when they find out how little [if anything] they actually get.
These lawyers should be required, by law, to let their clients know exactly what they can expect _if_ they prevail. People who approach lawyers to stat class action cases want one thing: money. Period. "Punishing" a company, showing them to be wrong is not the satisfaction they want. Lawyers should be required to show them examples of class actions over equivalent situations and the amount of damages awarded, the amount that went to fight the case [to the lawyers], and the amount distributed to the clients and how this amount translated into an individual investor's share amount [on a shares owned basis]. If this was required, the individual investor as well as corporations would better be served.
Lynn
|
