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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bill Wexler's Profits of DOOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Y2k_fan who wrote (1420)	7/11/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: S Shaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4634

Dear Y2K Fan: Just a few thoughts. Without knowing all of the details of the suit, where they are in terms of pre-trial discovery proceedings (that's where each side gets to take the other side's depositions and those of each side's witnesses) I would hate to hazard a guess, but I will give you a few comments. One of the drawbacks of having both a criminal case and a civil case pending is the limitations that the plaintiffs have in deposing the defendants. Without a criminal case pending, a defendant in a civil case normally cannot invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to answer questions. In this case, my guess is that the defendants have sought a protective order to ban the plaintiffs from taking depositions or at least limiting the areas in which they can be questioned. Trying to ask the attorneys involved as to what's going on will undoubtedly be met with the standard "it's attorney-client privilege." Thus, someone trying to dig into it would have to look at the court file which is a public record to see what's gone on upto now. Obviously, part of AVNT's product has been enjoined. My gut reaction is the most recent opinion of the "independent expert". My question is who hired this expert? If he was appointed by the court with agreement of both parties which happens occaisionally, then it is quite damning. If he's someone hired by the Plaintiffs, then he is not truly independent, he's merely someone from outside their company. Sadly, I have seen too many instances where so-called experts' opions are for hire depending on who is paying their tab. Sorry for the lengthy response. Scott