Re: 3/2/01 - [HEPH] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Special Motion to Strike
HOLLIS-EDEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELAWATCH, BEN_CASALE, DICKIE13_62301, DOGMAD2002, GPALCUS (M/CELL BLOCK 5), HEPHDIVER, HEPH_LONG, JARHED2046, LEBEAUSOLEIL, NOTTESCURRA, ONXBRAY, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
citizen.org
==========
I have been served. For all other et al
by: bencasale1 02/27/01 02:15 pm EST
Msg: 17614 of 17671
Other than Angelawatch and Dogmad please join me and my wife in a counter suit. We have been advised that FLOYD ABRAMS would be the best First Amendmant expert to hire. He is very famous and will want big bucks. If all of us innocents (I have never sold HEPH) join together in a counter suit for many millions of dollars then the firm may be interested. At least with us it's a slam dunk.
It is urgent for all of you who never shorted the stock to join us.
messages.yahoo.com
=====
FLOYD ABRAMS (212) 701-3621
by: bencasale1 02/27/01 02:43 pm EST
Msg: 17615 of 17671
I am calling for an appointment as I post this.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 17614 by bencasale1
messages.yahoo.com
=====
recommendation for counsel
by: smartretreiver 02/27/01 03:14 pm EST
Msg: 17616 of 17671
It is my opinion that the top defense counsel for "cyberlibel" cases like this is Megan Grey.
She is at Baker & Hostetler in Los Angeles. Her e-mail is MGRAY@baker-hostetler.com.
You can learn more about her pioneering work in the area of cyberlibel/cybersmear defense law by searching the web, if you like.
I am not affiliated with her, but I know her by reputation. I believe you would be well-served to consider her for this situation. Particularly as the venue is in California, and any New York counsel will need to retain local CA counsel and/or request pro hoc vice status.
As this case proceeds, do not neglect your counterclaims and countersuit. HEPH has walked into the ring and started the fight, don't let them settle you out and walk away without paying for the damage they've caused.
More later. Contact Megan. You will be well-served.
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: I have been served. For all other et
by: smartretreiver 02/27/01 03:59 pm EST
Msg: 17619 of 17671
"join together in a counter suit for many millions of dollars"
Under California's anti-SLAPP statute, you may be entitled to recover attorney fees - and possibly money damages, under certain circumstances. You might want to look into it.
Do not expect any counsel to take this type of case on a contingent fee basis - at least not the caliber of counsel you need.
I've read the HEPH complaint (thanks to a fax from Onx) and to me it appears to be a complete sham intended solely to stifle persons expressing opinions contrary to management (Richard Hollis, specifically) of a public company. This is a classic SLAPP and abuse of process/malicious prosecution case, IMO.
I believe that Richard, as chairman/CEO of a public company should be deemed a public figure for the limited purpose of message board discussions about his management style and actions. Keep that in mind as you proceed - it raises the bar for him/HEPH to prove defamation, as he must prove actual malice on the part of the speaker.
Based on the excerpts of messages quoted in the HEPH complaint, I believe HEPH will have very little likelihood of carrying its burden against even the most "aggressive" posters.
Also, in a countersuit, consider naming Richard Hollis personally.
More later.
This is not legal advice, simply my general comments to you in the course of ordinary discussion. Contact your own counsel for legal advice. I am just offering ideas. ;)
Posted as a reply to: Msg 17614 by bencasale1
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: here's Megan's contact information
by: smartretreiver 02/27/01 04:03 pm EST
Msg: 17620 of 17671
"Why do you care so much that people sue the company?"
I strongly think the company's complaint is illegitimate and abusive. These SLAPP tactics need to be punished, else they become a routine business trick for management to suppress shareholder opinions that are contrary to management.
I hold no financial interest in HEPH. I am however very disturbed by these types of, IMO, completely bogus SLAPP suits against message board posters. Until companies begin to feel the heat of strong counterclaims/countersuits that are pursued to final judgment and publicized, these abusive tactics will continue.
For me it is a political, rather than financial, interest.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 17618 by ortlvestor
messages.yahoo.com
=====
HEPH v. Angelawatch et al update:
by: dickie13_62301 02/28/01 12:30 pm EST
Msg: 17643 of 17671
Anyone interested in Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Angelawatch et al might wish to click onto this link: citizen.org
messages.yahoo.com
[note: post edited to correct typo in link]
=====
Hey Richard....
by: gpalcus 02/28/01 12:46 pm EST
Msg: 17645 of 17671
...Yes. I'm speaking directly to you within public eyeshot of everyone who still gives a damn enough to read, converse and yes, argue about how your company is running. And oh yes, I remind you, you aren't paying for this forum.
The market price of your company's stock sucks. I own some of it. Cheerleaders own some of it. Disgruntled people own some of it. None of us can honestly deny that the market price of your company's stock sucks. That is, of course, unless anyone buys into the concept, trial ballooned a couple of May's ago, that the market is an ass. It may be at times, but....
As a stockholder; a long stockholder; a recently HEPH indicted stockholder, I am torn. Part of me hopes you know what you are doing. This is the part of me that has consistantly wanted this investment to do well; has had faith in the science. But then again, part of me, the part you have been attempting to serve with a summons, that part of me knows that you don't.
Your lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. It is poorly timed, ill conceived and ultimately unwinnable. The HEPH stockholder part of me seems to be losing value daily. That part of me will lose more value as you press this silly case, cover legal fees and eventually damages. You, a stockholder too, lose value. More damaging perhaps is how you lose credability. As you continue to press this unwinnable suit, your critical judgement comes to question as well. Without credability or sound critical judgement, what value are YOU to this company?
The indicted stockholder part of me is a bit more direct. The course you are persuing not only peeves me, for it's indignance, but harkens me for the opportunity it presents. I am confident in my legal representation and the areas of the law in which we stand. Not only are there federal questions, but also a clear state bias against your type of SLAPP case. In the end, it is going to cost you money. It's going to cost the company money. Sadly and ironically, with the way things have looked over the past year or so, a damage award may be the only way any investor recoups their original investment. Yes, that's an opinion. But to me and at least nine others, it becomes an option that You presented.
How in the world do you think you can win? What started, it would seem, as an ill-conceived attempt to stifle criticism now blossoms into an uncontrollable behomoth. You brought this case on. NOW, you are going to have to fight it. I will. Others will.... You will. You are a fledgling start-up biotech without a positive balance sheet since inception, not a deep pocketed bully who can afford to challenge the protections guaranteed others by the 1st Amendment as well as state and federal law.
Why in the world do you deem this action prudent? As a CEO, it is only prudent that your Hide MUST be thicker than your Vanity. Do you really believe that you can sell the cost of this frivolous case to your shareholders? We'll see in May, or June, or July..... in La Jolla. What do you really think you will achieve? In my opinion, you may just achieve for yourself an unintended way out..... hopefully you don't assume to take the rest of us stockholders with you.
Most painfully, we would like nothing more than the chance to discuss the business of HEPH here; the science, the advances, the opportunity for growth.... But any discussion of the business of HEPH now must include this lawsuit, for it most certainly is going to effect the bottom line. Put us on IGNORE if you choose, but this lawsuit is now as integral to this cash strapped company as any new hire or 'more of the same' presentation recap.
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Hey Richard....
by: buddy6713 02/28/01 01:11 pm EST
Msg: 17647 of 17671
I can't joust with the best wordsmith aboard here but I will defend the company's decision to file the lawsuit. Obviously circumstances-like decisions in similar cases posted today on this board-may change the balance at any time.
Assuming- and this is the assumption the company has made after talking to competent counsel-that the company believed that disparaging comments about heph were actionable under California law, and assuming (this is probably more easily proven) that those disparaging comments damaged the company, then what should the company do?
It all depends upon the gravity of the perceived harm and apparently heph perceived the harm to be grave enough to go forward. It's really as simple as that. Everything is complicated by ego and certainly Hollis has a sizeable one. It's the same one that put him in a leadership position to possibly put a novel drug candidate into the marketplace (why you invested).
I appreciate your deep dark thoughts gpalcus and often find myself agreeing with you. In part I agree with you here: assuming the lawsuit was brought in the first place because opinion on this board influenced action important to the company then the predictable disparaging remarks about the lawsuit and the company only exacerbate the problem. It's happened here.
Like talking loudly to the person behind you in the movie who is talking too loudly and affecting your enjoyment of the film.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 17645 by gpalcus
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Hey Richard....
by: smartretreiver 02/28/01 04:35 pm EST
Msg: 17655 of 17671
"the company believed that disparaging comments about heph were actionable under California law"
If you're asserting that it is business disparagement (in a legal sense) to criticize management, then I think you have an indefensible position. Clearly shareholders can legally discuss the issue of management competence, truthfulness, and compensation in a public forum like a shareholders meeting.
So why not on Yahoo?
The excerpts of posts in the HEPH complaint are, IMO, well within the penumbra of protected speech and whomever counseled HEPH to file this suit I think made a significant mistake.
We will find out. Pandora's Box has been opened by HEPH, let's see what comes out.
BTW, I've got a copy (it's a two volume set, actually) of Sack on Defamation. I'll read it a bit this weekend to refresh my understanding of the current case in this area.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 17647 by buddy6713
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Hey Richard....
by: smartretreiver 02/28/01 04:44 pm EST
Msg: 17656 of 17671
"If you're asserting that it is business disparagement (in a legal sense) to criticize management, then I think you have an indefensible position."
Let me clarify this. If somebody made a clearly false, defamatory statement (e.g., the CEO killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman), that would be defamation. However, if a shareholder states that current management is not competent in the posters opinion, that is protected opinion speech. The excerpts in the complaint, on their face, fall into the latter category, IMO.
As for what constitutes a "public person for a limited purpose", I'd suggest that the head executive of a public corporation who is speaking at public forums about his company's treatment for AIDS/HIV is almost certainly a public person for the limited purpose of people discussing his company's work to commercialze that product, and their effectiveness (or not) at same.
Now, arguendo, if somebody had said Hollis was a bad golfer, with regard to that statement he would be a private person. But with regard to his effectiveness and competence at bringing forward a potential AIDS drug that he has voluntarily become a public figure for, IMO, I think he will be deemed a public figure.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 17655 by smartretreiver
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Correction:
by: smartretreiver 02/28/01 04:54 pm EST
Msg: 17657 of 17671
"I left the (i) out of litigation in my previous post. The correct link is citizen.org;
Good for those anti-SLAPP plaintiffs. I hope other defendants join them. I further hope that they will not agree to settle this for peanuts - I think a lesson needs to be taught - and I think there could be significant damages to be obtained if this is pursued wisely.
Anti-SLAPP plaintiffs - ypou may consider adding counterclaims to the HEPH suit directed at intentional infliction of emotional distress for discovery of your Yahoo identity, should it be outside a protective order and become part of a public record, as well as abuse of process - if this can be shown to be a fishing expedition for T.P. - as always, consult your legal counsel for advice.
I am fully in support of our anti-SLAPP plaintiffs and hope they will carry their case forward to a successful conclusion, even if Hollis-Eden offers to dismiss.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 17644 by dickie13_62301
messages.yahoo.com
=====
heh heh
by: heph_long 02/28/01 08:00 pm EST
Msg: 17660 of 17671
Ok gang, I got the summons today. HEPH, you have stirred a hornet's nest, and I hope everyone here is prepared for what may come of it. Of course this is all IN MY OPINION, lmao.
messages.yahoo.com
===== |
