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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Zia Sun(zsun) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (3654)	7/25/1999 3:11:00 PM
From: Arcane Lore	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10354

The matter was also the tried in a court not subject to that technicality. The results (dismissal of the litigation) are summarized in the cited SEC document. ...Litigation Arising Out of Trading in Old LTV Stock Soon after the trading in Old LTV Stock ceased, several groups of LTV shareholders who had purchased Old LTV Stock during the Trading Period, led by the market-making firm of Sullivan & Long, filed complaints against Scattered, Greenblatt, Jahelka, and Nichols. These cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a class action complaint (the "Class Complaint"). The Class Complaint alleged that Scattered and its principals committed securities fraud in violation of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, sold unregistered securities in violation of Section 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, obtained unjust enrichment, and violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It named the CHX and the MCC as third-party defendants, seeking to impose a constructive trust on Scattered's LTV trading profits. On March 29, 1994, the district court dismissed the Class Complaint with prejudice. [3] The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to allege any set of facts that would entitle them to relief. The court concluded that Scattered had neither made misleading statements nor engaged in market manipulation as alleged in the Class Complaint. Instead, the court found that Scattered had injected accurate information into the market, bringing the price of Old LTV Stock into line with its actual value. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. [4] ... [3]: Scattered Corporation Securities Litigation, 844 F. Supp. 416, 419-21 (N.D. Ill. 1994). [4]: Sullivan & Long, et al. v. Scattered Corporation, 47 F.3d 857 (7th Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. Harkins v. Scattered Corp., 516 U.S. 818 (1995). sec.gov