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 : Avant (AVNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PMylnar who wrote (1524)	11/20/1997 4:51:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3441

>>>I think companys can purchase bond insurance that allows them some flexibilty<<< It's what bail-bondsmen do for a living. Some executives at the company probably have a relationship with one from the criminal side. Standard deal is 10% of the amount (which is of course negotiable), so it would cost them 3.1 million to avoid putting up 31 million. The difference is that this is a cost, it would then be a 34.1 million loss were they not to succeed in their appeal effort. If they put up the 31 million and then not succeed, then that money is used to pay the judgement. The purpose of the bond is to insure that the appellant is not doing so just to delay payment of the judgement. From this perspective I doubt that it is 150% of the award, however, I don't know California laws so it could well be. Why do I keep thinking "Birds of a feather...."? Barb!