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 : NYRR,What is going on? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: a. paisley who wrote (3477)	10/7/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: David Tobin	Respond to of 4304

.12 to .135 Ouch !

To: a. paisley who wrote (3477)	10/7/1998 10:56:00 PM
From: 246810	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4304

"the topic of the lawsuit after they showed the 6mos rev of 700,00 dollars it was well low of all my guesses. With that small of rev how could they justify asking for 900 mill that was clue to exit." If I am translating the above correctly, I am reading that you say they can't ask for 900 million anti-trust restraint of trade damages because their revenue is too low. You are, of course, wrong. It is a restraint of trade law suit. Because of Conrail their revenue is low. Their trade was illegally restrained. They have been damaged by Conrail which resulted in the low revenues. Conrail must pay them. Conrail, of course, no longer exists. So what happens now?