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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pat mudge who wrote (3781)	3/19/1998 8:27:00 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Respond to of 18016

Pat, LU lawsuit has to do with patent infringement .I pulled up Edgar 10Q filling and it looks like NN is pretty certain of their position and they will fight it. www3.techstocks.com ( Click on NN, then on today's fillings and on 10Q on left hand side and go to page 13 : ) As you can see from above, it is to be noted that LU is both " a distributor and a competitor of NN products !! ".( with friends like this who needs enemies , or , in love and war all is fair ). Anyway perhaps that dashes all hopes of LU teaming up with NN, eh , ( as they'd say in Canada ).Also of note is that the lawsuit filled in 1994 !!!!!! ( I remember that one ) seems to be getting dismissed in large part .Those plaintiffs as I remember complained they '' lost moneys when NN stock went from $US 34 to 13 !! in 1993. I guess the Court must have thought that if these idiots had just continued to keep their $ 34 stock, they could have sold it last Sept 97 for $69 thus doubling their moneys!!! Some resistance at US 30.7: overhead stock supply and profit taking last 2 days plus jitters from Bay Networks. All networkers were affected. Today is a new day, see you later' TA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ www3.techstocks.com Page 13) NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORPORATION NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Canadian dollars, tabular amounts in thousands except per share data) (Unaudited)13. LitigationLucent Technologies Inc. ("Lucent Technologies") filed a complaint dated June24, 1997 in United States District Court in Delaware against the Company and itsUnited States subsidiary, Newbridge Networks Inc. Lucent Technologiesmanufactures and sells telecommunications systems, software and products, and isboth a distributor of the Company's products and a competitor of the Company.The complaint alleges that the Company's manufacture and sale in the UnitedStates of Newbridge frame relay and ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) switchproducts infringe certain United States patent rights claimed by LucentTechnologies, and requests actual and trebled damages in an unspecified amount.The Company has filed an answer to the complaint, and intends to defend thisaction vigorously. Based upon its present understanding of the laws in theUnited States and the facts, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses tothese claims. Because the outcome of the action is not certain at this time, noprovision for any liability that may result upon adjudication has been made inthese Consolidated Financial Statements. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ During the fiscal year ended April 30, 1995, the Company was served with one ofseveral complaints filed in United States District Court in Washington, D.C. bycertain persons purporting to be purchasers of Common Shares of the Company. Onor about May 8, 1995 these complaints were combined into a single consolidatedand amended complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") which named the Companyand certain of its executive officers as defendants. The First Amended Complaintpurported to be a class action on behalf of a class of persons who purchasedsecurities of the Company between March 29 and August 1, 1994 and alleged thatthe Company made false and misleading statements in violation of United Statessecurities law and common law, for which damages were sought in unspecifiedamounts. On June 3, 1996, the Court issued an order granting in part and denyingin part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Among other things, the Courtdismissed with prejudice the claim alleging violation of common law. The Courtalso dismissed the majority of plaintiffs' allegations of violation of UnitedStates securities law, but granted plaintiffs leave to replead these allegationsin a Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 3, 1996. The Courtfurther conditionally certified the action as a class action without prejudiceto the Company's right to renew its objection to class action certification uponcompletion of discovery. On April 10, 1997, the Court issued an order grantingin part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second AmendedComplaint. Among other things, the Court dismissed with prejudice a substantialportion of plaintiffs' allegations. The Company has served an answer denyingplaintiffs' claims. The Company intends to continue to defend this actionvigorously. Based upon its present understanding of the laws in the UnitedStates and the facts, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to theaction. Because the outcome of the action is not certain at this time, noprovision for any liability that may result upon adjudication has been made inthese Consolidated Financial Statements. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^