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: TokyoMex who wrote (12909)	3/20/1998 9:22:00 AM
From: jwk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

excuse me for not doing my own basic research on this yet, but can T-M or anyone jump in with info about which, if any of these are publically traded? TIA (and...... I promise to do my own digging on this over the weekend) Jack >>All major law firms ,, in the US and UK are now gearing up for this,, LAtham Watkins, Debois ,, Scanlop and Aarpes,,etc firms with offices all over the world and army of lawyers in thousands are setting up shop,, they are looking for y2k specialists,, as I understand it. <<

To: TokyoMex who wrote (12909)	3/20/1998 11:49:00 AM
From: Sunscreen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

I'm new to this thread (just bought TAVA last week), but thought I would toss in my two cents about the Y2K legal issues being discussed here. I am a litigation attorney for one of the firms TokyoMex mentioned in his post and he's right, at last some of the major firms are gearing up to handle Y2K litigation (although the majority are still in the dark on this issue). There has been a lot of talk (at least among the IP attorneys I know) that the Y2K litigation risk has been overwhelmingly exagerated. First, it will be too expensive for most businesses to pursue a lawsuit involving such technical and uncharted legal claims. Second, most insurance carriers (the real deep pockets) will be able to avoid coverage under their liability policies, either through existing exclusions (which they are even now drafting into their standard policy forms) or because the Y2K risk was known (although maybe not taken seriously) at the time the policy was issued. Third, most plaintiffs had the opportunity to mitigate their damages by fixing the problem and for whatever reason (lack of foresight etc...), chose not to do so -- this makes for a very difficult case. The bottom line is that although there will definately be plenty of lawsuits to keep us vultures busy, the Y2K problem will probably not rise to the level everyone seems to expect Anyway, hope this adds a little to the discussion. BTW, this has got to be one of the best SI threads I've ever followed, you all really seem to know your stuff and it's been a pleasure reading your analysis over the past two weeks. Good luck to all. Sunscreen