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 : Information Architects (IARC): E-Commerce & EIP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (6526)	6/4/1998 11:17:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 10786

JDN, the contract with Ingram was signed in December. So any "missing" revenue would have shown up in that Q or Q1 '98. The suit is for $700K, which, I am guessing is the total amount Ingram would have owed had the project gone to completion which it did not. In other words, if someone is obligated by contract to buy a million widgets from you, you produce them, and they refuse to accept any more after the first one, you don't sue for the cost of the one widget, you sue for the entire amount contracted, plus damages, etc. So, I think it entirely safe to assume that ALYD didn't let the debt pile up before suing! If I get a copy of the lawsuit I'll post whatever I can. - Jeff