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 : XYBR - Xybernaut -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3969)	4/17/2000 1:00:00 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 6847

Of course Mama Bear, you do want everyone to know that the case was dismissed on a technicality. The plaintiff had brought suit in Seattle for the sake probably of keeping costs down. Rather than sue each individual in their state of residence (a difficulty when facing semi-anonymous message board posters), the plaintiff tried to sue all in the state where the computer servers for SI are located. The Judge said NO, good try but not a sufficient nexus to get jurisdiction. -- There was no decision on the merits of the case. As I've suggested all along, this is all evolving law and the next plaintiff with more resources may make things more difficult for those that admittedly make false statements. The fact is that the so-called Truthseeker did admit to making false statements and did in fact publish a retraction. By the way, my posts concerning possible violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder are totally different issues from those raised in this litigation.