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.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (936)	12/9/2000 11:28:35 PM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

DOCTOR WINS LIBEL LAWSUIT Internet posting triggered case Dr. Sam D. Graham Jr. resigned as chairman of the urology department at Emory University School of Medicine in July 1998 after leading the department from probationary status to a reputation as one of the top 20 departments in the country. "I made it very open and clear that I was leaving on good terms," Graham said of his decision to move to Richmond and go into private practice here. But a friend told him in February 1999 to check a posting on a Yahoo! message board on the Internet for Grocer Inc. The message, posted by someone who identified himself only as "fbiinformant," suggested that Graham had taken kickbacks from Urocor after giving the department's pathology business to the Oklahoma-based company. "This worked out well until the poor SOB got caught with his hand in the cookie jar," the message concluded. "Poor guy had to resign his prestigious position." Last week, a judge entered a $675,000 judgment against Dr. Jonathan R. Oppenheimer, the pathologist who posted the message. Graham's attorneys, D. Alan Rudlin and J. Burke McCormick, said they believe the judgment is the first, and certainly the largest, libel verdict based on an anonymous Internet message. It was the result of a trial before U.S. District Judge Richard L. Williams in October. A jury recommended that Oppenheimer and a pathology services corporation he owned pay Graham $325,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 to punish Oppenheimer for his misconduct. On Thursday, Williams rejected motions by an attorney for Oppenheimer to set aside the jury's verdict or grant him a new trial. Instead, Williams ordered Oppenheimer to pay the verdict and said he would have to post a $750,000 bond to appeal the case to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Graham recalled his reaction to the message. "I was shocked. Everything I've done in my life was honorable. When I was accused of this, it was terrible." He responded on the message board that the decision to hire Urocor was for sound medical and business reasons. "I never personally received a dime for Urocor," he wrote. "What you state in your message is a lie, and I demand that you produce the source of your information." Williams noted that Oppenheimer had never met Graham and called the anonymous attack "about as despicable as any course of conduct that one could engage in." Rudlin said the thrust of Oppenheimer's defense was that Internet message boards contain free-wheeling exchanges of information to a very limited audience and that no one takes the messages seriously. Oppenheimer also contended that Graham hadn't shown any damage in the way of loss of business or harm to his reputation. Rudlin responded that the law doesn't require him to show such damage because the false information accused him of a crime and attacked him professionally. McCormick said tracking down the identity of fbiinformant was a time-consuming and expensive task. He filed a suit styled Graham v. John Doe in state court, so that he could issue subpoenas to Yahoo! and then to Internet service providers to try to track down fbiinformant's identity. Internet companies typically resist identifying users of their systems and respond only to a subpoena or other court order, McCormick said. Finally, an attorney for Urocor became aware of the litigation and told him that Oppenheimer and fbiinformant were the same person. "I didn't believe it at first," McCormick said. But Oppenheimer admitted it during the trial, McCormick said, and the duplicity made it much easier to convince the jury that he had acted with reckless disregard for the truth, the legal hurdle that Graham had to clear to win his case. timesdispatch.com Have fun, Phil

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (936)	7/31/2001 12:17:38 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 7/31/01 - [CGYC] Carnegie International Seeks Default Judgement in $2.1 Billion Suit vs. Grant Thornton Carnegie International Seeks Default Judgement in $2.1 Billion Suit vs. Grant Thornton `Willful and Intentional Destruction of Evidence' by Accounting Firm AllegedParamount Subsidiary Signs Master Agency Agreement with Qwest Communications BALTIMORE, Jul 31, 2001 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Carnegie International Corporation (OTC BB: CGYC chart, msgs), an Internet support and computer telephony holding company, said it has filed a motion in Baltimore City Circuit Court asking for a judgement in its favor in a $2.1 billion suit against Grant Thornton LLP, its former accounting firm. The motion, filed on Wednesday, July 25, alleges that J.W. Mike Starr, a senior partner and former director of risk management at Grant Thornton, "willfully, knowingly and intentionally destroyed Carnegie documents with the full understanding that litigation was imminent." The motion says that Starr admitted destroying the documents in a deposition given earlier in July in Chicago. Carnegie's motion says that "Starr admitted that he deliberately destroyed the entire Carnegie file, including, among other things, e-mails, communications with Carnegie, and his contemporaneous notes of telephone calls, meetings with Carnegie management and the members of its Audit Committee." Carnegie originally filed suit against Grant Thornton in May 2000, claiming that the accounting firm had "caused omissions and misstatements" in filing Form 10SB and Form 10KSB for 1997 and 1998 made with the Security & Exchange Commission That eight-count complaint accused Grant Thornton of fraudulent inducement, negligence, malpractice, breach of contract, excessive fees, breach of trust, intentional interference with business relations, and defamation, during the period between December of 1997 and October of 1999. Those filings, Carnegie's suit and motion allege, led to a "near catastrophic" drop in the trading price of the company's shares, a suspension in trading lasting more than a year, and, ultimately, delisting by the American Stock Exchange. Trading in Carnegie shares resumed in May of 2000 on the NASDAQ Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board. E. David Gable, chairman of Carnegie, said the company is represented in its actions against Grant Thorton by William H. Murphy, Jr., of Baltimore, who filed last week's motion, and Willie E. Gary of Stuart, Florida. Paramount Signs Agreement with Quest Carnegie also said that its Paramount International Telecommunications, Inc., subsidiary has signed a Master Agency Agreement with Qwest Communications Ltd. (NYSE: Q chart, msgs). Paramount, based in Vista, California, serves hotels, hospitals, institutions and other businesses, primarily in 0+/- call auditing and international one-plus sectors, and has more than 250,000 registered phones. Under the terms of the two-year agreement, Qwest will provide enhanced services for Paramount, including live operator service in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and the ability to use Qwest branding for all call records originating from Paramount properties. Paramount also gains access to the Qwest platform for calls placed from Western Europe to the U.S. with credit card, local exchange carrier (LEC) or third-party/collect billing. Michael Eberle, president and CEO, of Paramount, said the new business from Europe should result in some 15,000 additional calls billed through Paramount per month within a six-month period, and that the live operator services in the U.S., Canada and Mexico could increase his company's profits by 15 to 30 per cent annually. About Carnegie International Corporation Carnegie International Corporation is an Internet support and computer telephony holding company with specialization in telecommunications products, services and distribution, and in E-Commerce and EDI. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor" for forward-looking statements. Certain information included in this Press Release (as well as information in oral statements or other written statements made or to be made by Carnegie International Corporation) contain statements that are forward-looking, such as statements relating to the future anticipated direction of the telecommunications industry, plans for future expansion, various business development activities, planned capital expenditures, future funding sources, anticipated sales growth, and potential contracts. Such forward-looking information involves important risks and uncertainties that could significantly affect anticipated results in the future, and accordingly, such results may differ from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of Carnegie International Corporation. These risks and uncertainties included, but are not limited to, those relating to development and expansion activities, dependence on existing management, financing activities, domestic and global economic conditions, change in Federal or state laws, and market competition factors. Contact: Press Contacts: Carnegie International Corporation Lowell Farkas, 410/785-7400 lfarkas@carnegieint.com or The Kaminer Group David A. Kaminer, 914/684-1934 dkaminer@kamgrp.com siliconinvestor.com