Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Biotech / Medical : SABRATEK CORP (SBTK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter V who wrote (232)	6/29/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: mod	Respond to of 487

<<You have no such proof that Milberg intends to destroy SBTK out of spite, or for any other reason.>> If the new charges are proven bogus, then that opens up Milberg to the same "abuse of process" they just paid $50 million to settle. I'd like a jury to hear evidence that they tried to hurt SBTK's stock price in order to get them to agree to a quick settlement, with a lot of fees for Milberg. After ROCAP was reapproved, the heart of their previous case fell apart, so they needed some more accusations quick. I wonder what a jury would make of their leaking their suit to Pluvia before filing in an apparent attempt to drive down the stock price. The leaking clearly shows the "intent" to hurt SBTK and their stock price. I think a jury would catch on real quick. I think a jury would love to stick it to a firm like Milberg again. They were so terrified of what a jury might award in punitive damages in the Lexecon case, they agreed to pay $5 million MORE then the actual damages awarded because they were scared stiff of the potential punitive damages.