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 : Source Media SRCM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rommy B. who wrote (1225)	9/28/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3015

SRCM Lawsuit Update.... For those of you who do not follow YHOO (and I don't blame you a bit), here is a post I made over there that provides some information on the status of the SRCM lawsuits... Let me apologize in advance for the harsh tone... <<<The only motion won by a former Brite employee relates to a covenant not to compete>>> Crocker, ROFL!!! Come on buddy - you didn't read ANY of the motions did you? Obviously not, or you would know just how stupid your statements here are. Damn buddy - why didn't you get off yer lazy butt and read 'em instead of parroting BS from insider sources who are leading you down a path of foolishness??? THE REAL FACTS.... Yes the motion that was won relates to a non-compete convent by former Brite employee's who started IMS, and ended up taking SRCM's customers. What you missed was this: (I'm chuckling as I write this, because you came out all fired up - screaming accusations - and end up shoving your foot down your throat!!!) The non-compete was the most crucial part of the suit. If no non-compete was enforceable, then there is/was no torturous interference with SRCM's customers DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH.... (still chuckling heartily about this one Crocker!!) When there is no non-compete, or binding contract with the customers, then what IMS did in attaining SRCM's customers is known as fair competition DUUUUUUUUH... Perhaps you have forgotten - competition is what the good 'ol USA was built on. The only way it would/could have been torturous interference is if SRCM had some sort of binding agreement in place that was somehow interfered with by IMS. There was none. The only reason part of the suit was dismissed and not the entire suit, is because the judge gave SRCM a chance to amend their complaint - IF THEY COULD PROVE THE CLIENTS THAT LEFT SRCM HAD ASSIGNED THEIR CONTRACTS TO SRCM, OR SRCM HAD SOME BINDING REASON TO HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE CLIENTS. Without the non-compete convent and without an agreed upon assignment by the customers ... What grounds do they have for torturous interference? NONE - and if you read the motions and the complaint you would know that idiot boy. The motions from SRCM all focused on the non-compete covenant because it was the key to the SRCM suit. Now that SRCM lost the non-compete issue, the entire suit has no foundation. Whoever fed you the crap you posted was blowing hot air. SRCM now has no case and they know it. For this reason the suit is as good as over, as evidenced by SRCM's sudden attempts to settle the suit. Now, just to educate your dumb hillbilly ass a little more, listen up bucko... Where SRCM made it's most crucial and biggest rookie business mistake was as follows.... When a business purchases another business, (like SRCM purchasing Brite and VNN), the seller is ALWAYS required to be responsible for guaranteeing assignment of the customer contracts. Well in the case of SRCM buying Brite and VNN - the BUYER (SRCM) - not the seller was made responsible for guaranteeing the customers were assigned to SRCM. ROFL!!!! Man, the Brite and VNN attorneys must have been laughing behind closed doors about slipping that one past the SRCM guys!!! Only a wet behind the ears high school rookie would have made such a stupid business mistake. SRCM didn't go out and get written assignment from the customers they purchased in the Brite VNN deal, and they didn't force the seller to do it either - which is what they should have done. Nope, the SRCM buffoons blew the most crucial part of the purchase transaction and it cost them - as of Q2 98 $25.9 million in customers who just walked out the door. In my neck of the woods we call that total incompetence. You want proof of this - do some homework idiot boy - read the Nov 97 8k's - the agreement for the purchase of VNN & Brite is in there and states SRCM was responsible for guaranteeing assignment of the customers. Class is out for now Crocker, I suggest you now dial 911 and get to an ER ASAP - from th purple color of yer face, I'd guess the foot in yer throat has cut off your airway. All Comments IMO Cheers, your Astute Educator Steve