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: Pluvia who wrote (1230)	9/30/1998 9:31:00 PM
From: xcr600	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3015

Pluvia, do you see the MM's trying to move this thing back up a bit prior to conversion? I would love to add more shares, but Datek still has the NS slapped on the stock. I'm afraid to close my short as well for fear of not getting more shares. Any other brokerages with shares for SRCM?

To: Pluvia who wrote (1230)	10/1/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: Smilodon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3015

Kansas Lawsuit Notes Taken from the copies of the court documents. SRCM Alleges 1. Mike Shell had an agreement not to compete with Brite, and that agreement is transferable to IT. Therefore, the company Shell owns, IMS is forbidden to compete with SRCM 2. The non-compete agreement is valid for one-year from the time Mike Shell was terminated by Brite (10/30/97) and SRCM has incurred monetary damages due to breach of that contract. 3. Other former employees of IT had agreements not to compete. IMS knew this, but intentionally induced these employees to breach their covenants and join IMS, causing IT monetary damages. 4. IMS has violated the non-compete, and are wrongfully diverted customers from IT. IMS has wrongfully caused customers to terminate or discontinue their business relationship with IT and cause IT monetary damages. IMS Responds 1. Shell had a non-compete with Brite, but that agreement was not transferred or assigned to IT as part of the Asset Purchase Agreement. The agreement was not automatically transferred, as the Asset Purchase was not a reorganization, merger or consolidation and since Brite continues to conduct substantial properties other than those transferred, IT cannot be considered a successor to the business of Brite. 2. The non-compete is not valid, and therefore there are no damages. 3. IT has no restrictive covenants with the employees hired by IMS, and any agreements with the IT employees are unenforceable as an improper restraint of trade. 4. There was no non-compete to violate. The customers who switched to IMS initiated the contact themselves as they were dissatisfied with services or performance or did not want to do business with IT. Judge Rules 1. Dismisses SRCM allegations #1 and #2. 2. Dismisses SRCM allegation #4 as it relates to prospective business relationships, and grants the plaintiff 30 days to amend allegation #4 to contend that IMS induced IT's customers to breach their contracts with IT. My Analysis of the SRCM Kansas lawsuit Looks like SRCM has lost this one. 1. The facts match Pluvia and IMS's assertions about the case 2. If the Shell non-compete is ruled invalid, it is unlikely that lower level employees would be covered by a non-compete covenant that would apply. 3. Proving IMS induced customers to breach contracts with IT seems very difficult. Especially since SRCM has already disclosed (in the 10K) that most if not all of the contracts were non-transferable and terminable at will. I should get the Michigan lawsuits next week. Regards, Archer