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 : CMGI What is the latest news on this stock? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SHGLaw who wrote (17334)	3/18/2000 1:08:00 PM
From: Paulh	Respond to of 19700

SHG, All good points. When stock is used as currency, one would think that volatility is implicit, especially in internet stocks. I'm not an attorney but this sure seems to be "reaching". Paul

To: SHGLaw who wrote (17334)	3/18/2000 1:13:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19700

I don't agree with your analysis. Deals struck at arm's-length between sophisticated parties must be upheld in the commercial world, even if in retrospect it appears that one or the other participants made a mistake of judgment. That is the nature of business, and the courts should have nothing to do with it absent fraud or unconscionability (a notion which is best restricted to consumer contracts).

To: SHGLaw who wrote (17334)	3/19/2000 9:56:00 AM
From: Timothy C. Madulka	Respond to of 19700

From what little I know of the lawsuit, I am not sure this is an accurate analogy.The value of any public company is established by the market. Following the acquisition, the value of Flycast has increased as determined by the market (i.e., increase in value of ENGA). Was the acquisition of Flycast partially responsible for the increase in share price of ENGA? Maybe, maybe not. Is ENGA now overvalued? Is Flycast now overvalued? What is the value of Flycast? The plaintiff thinks she knows and considers that the market has over-valued Flycast. However, the market will always establish (and will continue to establish)the value, not the individual. In your analogy, the market still values the car at 50K since anyone else could walk onto the lot and pay 50K at the same time one is paying 150K of CMGI stock for the same car. The market value of the car has not changed, whereas the market value of Flycast has apparently changed, as established by the market. <<If you agreed to purchase a car which, on the day of agreement was valued at $50G, with $50G's worth of cmgi stock, and instead of paying cash agreed to fork over that amount of stock. But on the day of delivery, your $50G's worth of stock was now worth $150G while the car is still only worth $50G. Is that fair?>>