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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cynic 2005 who wrote (69235)	2/20/2001 10:54:26 AM
From: IceShark	Respond to of 436258

They are cooked due to the timing. -ng- I don't know how commercial cases get tried in Kanuckistan, but if it is by jury they are going to have to look pretty hard to find someone that didn't just see their or a relative's retirement accounts get oosiked. Bad, bad juju.

To: Cynic 2005 who wrote (69235)	2/20/2001 11:43:03 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I agree with Ice that the timing stinks. The issue is obviously going to be whether Nortel materially misrepresented anything to JDSU. Material misrepresentation in this case would cause fraud in the inducement of the contract, which would give JDSU grounds for recission. On the other hand, if Nortel made its books available to JDSU, and the information was there for JDSU to see, but JDSU was negligent in not seeing it, then it's JDSU's fault, and no recission. The burden of proof is on JDSU, and the level of proof in fraud cases is higher than proponderance of the evidence, it has to be clear and convincing evidence. From a practical point of view, it would be foolish of JDSU to make these allegations public unless they thought they had a good shot at winning.