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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : QDRX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: judge who wrote (3169)	12/1/1997 12:33:00 PM
From: J. Davies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3977

Quadrax management have been less than forthcoming about the Vega pultrusion machine fiasco. I was worried that the original PR from Power Stick had 7 or 8 counts mentioned and I wondered if we had seen the end of it yet. I found out how to get access to the court records - only the dockets - not the full transcripts. The first thing I learned was that the first trial had gone against Q with punitive damages of $150,000. If the Q had made a simple mistake or been swindled, there would have been token damages of $1 and Q would have been ordered to give back the machine. Instead the jury found for punitive damages - not much - but the jury were saying (IMHO) that this was more than just a mistake on Q's part. The recent trial dockets have indicated that there was some kind of settlement in the offing on the remaining counts. Doug Meyers also indicated that talks were taking place ( although Doug would have us believe now that he gets this info out of his a/h). The latest entry in the court record is Power stick calling for depositions from 5 people - 3 ex-employees and the pro-tem CEO and CFO of Q. IMHO this says that talks have broken down - why bother with the expense and trouble of depositions if you are not going to trial? The claim by Power Stick is now for patent infringement, which could be very expensive for Q. Treble damages for lost income, forfeiture of machinery used in infringement and forfeiture of profits made from sticks are possible. The Q is obviously worried - Doug opined that the sticks sold from the pultrusion machine were profitless and a one-time freak sale(reply 3154). This statement is, IMHO, simply a posture to minimize the damage if they lose the case. Q is going to say in court that they made no profit from the machine and were just lucky to get the sales they did!! JD