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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank M. McHugh who wrote (5773)	11/10/1997 11:14:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Whoops, I see you already posted Cory Johnson's story, so the web address I gave is redundant. Actually, we should be careful about posting copyrighted stories here (snippets are OK, and so is anything from Businesswire or PR Newswire). Wade

To: Frank M. McHugh who wrote (5773)	11/11/1997 12:17:00 AM
From: Clayleas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

<One reason for the silence is that tales of impending Year 2000 breakdowns are shrouded in issues of liability. Companies are afraid to admit their problems because if they don't get them fixed, what they admit to now could come back to haunt them later.> I've seen similar statements to this in several places and I just don't understand it. Granted, no one likes to hang out their dirty laundry, but I don't see how admitting that you have a y2k problem and are doing everything you can to fix it would increase your legal liability. The y2k problem is well known by all in industry. Therefore, it would seem to me that if you do nothing about it and you end up with a problem, then you would still be sued for negligence. So whether you admit it now or not, your going to get sued for the things you don't get fixed. I'm not a legal expert so this might be all wrong. Any lawyers who can explain this better? Jim