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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: S100 who wrote (41991)	9/21/1999 12:20:00 AM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

could you explain this statement. Not sure what "with prejudice" means in this context. Though I'm not JGoren, nor a lawyer, I think I can answer this. If a case is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be brought back to the court, whereas a case dismissed w/o prejudice could be refiled.

To: S100 who wrote (41991)	9/21/1999 4:14:00 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

When a case is dismissed it may be with or without prejudice to the refiling of the claims. Examples of the latter would be when the case has been dismissed because the plaintiff took no action to prosecute its case for a long time (dismissal for want of prosecution); those are dismissed without prejudice (the the refiling of same) and the plaintiff may file a new case alleging the same stuff. Here, the parties settled their claims against one another and wanted to make sure that all the litigation ended forever, so it was dismissed with prejudice (against the refiling of the claims). Your second question had to do with prior Qualcomm commitments to provide certain vendor financing to infrastructure customers. Qualcomm agreed that it would continue to provide that financing even if the business was now Ericy's but it put in a caveat that the customers had to comply with certain conditions; otherwise, Qualcomm would have been liable to provide financing even if it had not been liable to provide financing if it had continued to own the division and the customers somehow failed to meet contractual requirements for Qualcomm financing.