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: Dale Baker who wrote (4652)	5/20/2003 1:03:48 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Then how do you score someone like Bill Wexler, who was forced to issue a retraction of statements regarding Valence, only to retract the retraction a few months later when events showed him to be in the right all along?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (4652)	5/20/2003 3:29:03 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Hi Dale, The hedge fund claimed the company admitted the strategy wasn't working and the company denied making any such statement. The retraction from Barbary Coast subsequently makes the likely facts pretty clear. They stepped over the line by inventing material. I would allow for another possibility. Perhaps a third-party person did indeed relate such a statement to Barbary Coast, but Barbary Coast was unable to effectively prove such a statement was made, and therefore had to issue a retraction. Perhaps this third-party individual might even have had some type of association with Chattem. This type of thing happens all of the time, where something is said "off the record" but when the information becomes public, denials fly from all directions. I'm not saying that my description is what actually happened, merely allowing for the possibility. It has been my general experience that shorts almost always do a better job of DD than their long counterparts in any given investment. So perhaps I tend to give shorts the benefit of any doubts where others may be quick to castigate them. In any event, it is my opinion that Barbary Coast has been at least as accurate in its opinions as investors in general. I recently had the opportunity to look at Chattem in detail, as they had consistently shown up on both my value and growth screens. I also saw that article you posted, and to be quite honest, it gave me pause to think. I looked and looked and looked at Chattem. Yes, revenues and earnings are increasing. After an initial plunge in stock price, generally around the same time frame as the comments attributed to Barbary Coast, Chattem stock has since recovered and apparently has some forward momentum. But, as mmmary indicated in her post, I question the model of purchasing old and tired viable products, repackaging them, and then advertising and promoting the heck out of the "new look". I did go to stores in my area, and easily found the revamped products. Nice clean, attractive packaging. Plenty of product on the shelves, stacked nicely and neatly. Competitors' products were not nearly as plentiful, nor were the stacked piles nearly as complete as Chattem's products. My conclusion: The competitors' products were selling better in the retail stores than Chattem's comparable products. But that opinion is merely anecdotal "evidence" to support my ultimate decision to pass on Chattem for now. Time will ultimately tell whether or not I made a good decision. If I'm wrong it won't be the first time, and probably won't be the last time either. KJC PS - Are you still over in Europe? If so, how are things going over there? I still lurk on your 50% thread from time to time. Best wishes...

To: Dale Baker who wrote (4652)	5/20/2003 6:08:27 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 12465

anybody who's ever been in a long-term relationship can attest to the fact that perfectly true statements get retracted all the time. sometimes life is just easier that way.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (4652)	8/21/2003 7:56:29 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 12465

The Company also announced that it now expects total revenues for the fiscal third quarter to be in the range of $59-61 million, as opposed to the previously announced estimate of $62-64 million. The Company further estimates its earnings per share for the fiscal third quarter will be at the lower end of the previously announced estimate of $.33-.35. The Company's lowered expectations are the result of weaker than expected sales, particularly from DEXATRIM, its topical analgesic brands and its international division, offset in part by continued high margins, balance sheet management and effective cost controls. The revised estimates for the fiscal third quarter will have a corresponding impact on the Company's previous estimates for the entire 2003 fiscal year." Chattem, Inc. Announces Lawsuit Filed by Kemper Indemnity 2003-08-13 10:50 (New York) Insurance Company; Revises Guidance for Fiscal Third Quarter Business Editors/Health/Medical Writers CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 13, 2003--Chattem, Inc. (NASDAQ:CHTT), a leading marketer and manufacturer of branded consumer products, announced today that Kemper Indemnity Insurance Company ("Kemper") has filed a lawsuit against the Company in federal court in Chattanooga seeking to rescind the excess product liability insurance policy issued to the Company by Kemper (the "Kemper Policy"). The Kemper Policy provides the Company with $50 million of excess coverage for product liability claims, including those asserted in the lawsuits currently pending and anticipated to be filed against the Company relating to the existence of phenylpropanolamine ("PPA") in DEXATRIM. Coverage under the Kemper Policy is in excess of $23.5 million of product liability insurance coverage that is available to the Company from two other insurance companies. In addition, the Company has $25 million of insurance coverage from another insurance company that is in excess of the Kemper Policy. In the lawsuit, Kemper is seeking to rescind the Kemper Policy based on allegations that the Company failed to disclose the preliminary results of the Yale Study during the submission process to renew the Kemper Policy for coverage for the December 21, 1999 to May 31, 2001 policy period. In the alternative, Kemper is seeking a declaratory judgment on certain policy interpretation issues that if granted would bar or limit coverage for PPA-related claims under the Kemper Policy. The Company believes that the claims made by Kemper in its lawsuit are without merit. The Company will aggressively defend this lawsuit and will vigorously pursue its rights under the Kemper Policy and its available remedies at law against Kemper which may include, among other things, a counterclaim of bad faith against Kemper. For a discussion of the lawsuits pending against the Company relating to DEXATRIM with PPA and the Company's product liability insurance coverage, see the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company also announced that it now expects total revenues for the fiscal third quarter to be in the range of $59-61 million, as opposed to the previously announced estimate of $62-64 million. The Company further estimates its earnings per share for the fiscal third quarter will be at the lower end of the previously announced estimate of $.33-.35. The Company's lowered expectations are the result of weaker than expected sales, particularly from DEXATRIM, its topical analgesic brands and its international division, offset in part by continued high margins, balance sheet management and effective cost controls. The revised estimates for the fiscal third quarter will have a corresponding impact on the Company's previous estimates for the entire 2003 fiscal year. The Company has not made any revisions to its earlier estimates for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003. The Company anticipates that revisions, if any, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003 would be announced in the fiscal third quarter earnings release to be issued on or about September 19, 2003. The Company's expectations and estimates are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which contains a safe harbor for forward-looking statements. The Company relies on this safe harbor in making such disclosures. ____________________________________________________________________

To: Dale Baker who wrote (4652)	8/21/2003 7:57:40 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 12465

Lawsuit file by Kemper against CHTT 31-37 COUNT I 31. Kemper repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 as though fully set forth herein. 32. Chattem obtained the preliminary results of the Yale HSP Study in October of 1999, prior to the issuance of the Kemper Policy. 33. During the submission process to procure the Kemper Policy, Chattem failed to disclose and/or did not reveal to Kemper the results of the Yale HSP Study, which it had received months before the effective date of the Kemper Policy. While Chattem had knowledge of the Yale HSP Study, Kemper did not have such knowledge and would not have discovered the Yale HSP Study through common observation or the exercise of ordinary diligence. 34. The results of the Yale HSP Study were material to the risk of loss Kemper believed that it was underwriting. 35. The information provided by Chattem in conjunction with its efforts to obtain the Kemper Policy failed to disclose and/or reveal to Kemper the results of the Yale HSP Study and effectively misrepresented the exposure faced by Chattem in connection with its sale of Dexatrim containing PPA. 36. Chattem’s representations in its submission were therefore false, and constitute a material misrepresentation increasing the risk of loss under the Kemper Policy. 37. As a result of Chattem’s misrepresentations, Kemper is entitled to rescind the Kemper Policy.