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 : S3 (A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael who wrote (7549)	11/7/1997 1:22:00 PM
From: Parker Benchley	Respond to of 14577

Mike, It's the window period from the quartely statement to the accounting error. People predicated their buys on the earnings and then got zapped with "error." FWIW, I don't think the suit is warranted at all in terms of fraud and certainly lilits the participation of harmed shareholders. If it were based on incompetence G.J. would be having tea in an orange jump suit. This is mainly greedy attorneys chasing an ambulance. Onward, George

To: Michael who wrote (7549)	11/7/1997 1:25:00 PM
From: Jan A. Van Hummel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14577

Michael, You make a good point. The infraction already incurred during prior reporting periods. The lawyers may have elected to confine it to the period from the date of the last quarterly release until the date of the restatement announcement for numerous reasons. Perhaps, with a book value of $5/share, there won't be a lot of money coming out of this suit, if at all. By condensing the period, the burden of proof may be lessened as the company certainly could have known of October 20 what it announced on November 3. To include past quarters may be more tedious and more difficult to get a quick judgment on. It reduces the number of shareholders that can be included in the suit, only those that bought stock between October 20 and November 3. This would increase the amount to be recovered per share (if at all). The market price differential should be minimal. Actually, it should be the difference between what the stock was trading before the November 3 announcement, and after, since the stock had declined to abt $9 based on the quarterly report. Including prior quarter infractions would substantially increase the pool of harmed shareholders and widen the difference in market drop and there won't be too much, probably nothing, left to go around. The likely winners in this? The lawyers, as by filing it the way they did chances of a judgment are enhanced and they get paid first. Jan A. Van Hummel