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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BWAC who wrote (12274)	3/16/2011 9:49:25 PM
From: yard_man	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 119360

Give me what you think the odds are of a lawsuit going forward on which they could really collect anything. If so, for what will they bear the liability?? if they used the best available technology at the time, absent defects in workmanship -- they will bear no liability. If you think it is a high odds play -- short GE. Can you not understand the difference between this and say a Bhopal?? It was a natural disaster, not a machine of GE's gone awry. They may as well be liable for a nuclear attack or a meteor striking the facility. Some case would have to be made that an "error of design" or "substandard workmanship" contributed to the failure. That will be a very hard case to make under the circumstances. I'm not telling you not to short them -- if that's what you want to do. I think GE is bloat from a stock price POV -- but there is bigger bloat out there. I certainly wouldn't try to capitalize on the markets initial impression of things. On a moral or ethical basis -- I think there is not any grounds for a suit, if similar plants are in operation elsewhere and doing fine, but not subject to such a natural catastrophe. But that's just me. I believe in fair play -- not just picking the deepest pocket available. I mean that sincerely. If such a suit were filed -- operations would be gone over with a fine tooth comb. The first liability lies with the power company as they operate the plant, but unless they can be shown as operating sub-par or unsafe -- I say again, it's a natural disaster. Attorneys will have as much luck as suing establishments located on the shore in the prior Tsunami saying their establishments should have withstood a Tsunami and kept their patrons safe. It's laughable, imo, unless there is one really big smoking gun -- but it's like chum in the water I guess. Works up the sharks.