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 : OILEX (OLEX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Razorbak who wrote (4040)	9/11/1998 3:02:00 AM
From: Steve	Respond to of 4276

Thanks Razorback. I still stand by my earlier comment that "constructive fraud" is difficult to prove. The language in Arkansas and the other 49 states is fuzzy in this area and the language appears to impinge on a well established area of law, negligence. I think the appeal of a "constructive fraud" conviction vis a vis a negligence conviction is more fraught with danger of being overturned by a higher court exactly because of the "fuzzy" language. But frauds carry stiffer penalties hence their "appeal" to revengeful plaintiffs. As to the Oilex case Saul could better argue negligence but he would have to acknowledge the consulting contract that Burditt says existed between himself and Phoenix and Oilex from November 1994 and July 1998 when it was cancelled. Arguing fraud would require direct evidence of a "state of mind" of the defendant and constructive fraud could be a tactic that Saul's lawyers pursue to get relief as it does not require proof of "state of mind". Arguing negligence requires that a fiduciary responsibility exist between the plaintiff and the defendant. That the defendant failed in his fiduciary duties to protect the plaintiff's financial interest adequately and that there existed, in this case, a conflict of interest between the defendant's private activities and his duties as a fiduciary to secure the plaintiff's interests. But to do this requires Saul to acknowledge the consulting agreement, which is in dispute, which would in turn validate Burditt's claim as a creditor of Oilex. A kind of Catch-22 for Saul aka Kazarian (sp?).