To: Spider Valdez who wrote (17649 ) 1/30/1999 8:27:00 PM From: Level Head Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 26163
Hello! I should note, first off, that I do not own AZNT stock, but am interested in the company for other reasons. I do not have an interest in flame wars, merely in presenting information that may be helpful to the discussion at hand, i.e. the most recent legal case. Also, I would benefit should AZNT succeed as a company, but evidence suggests that this is not likely. I strive to form opinions based on evidence, and am always ready to evaluate new evidence. I'm quite careful about this process, hence the nickname. For the time being, I'll stick with the nickname; the talk about firebombing and shoot-outs suggests that low profiles are prudent. I'm new to the active side of this discussion, but was intrigued by the ferocity of Spider Valdez' response -- so I pulled the case information (it is public information, of course) and took a look. Jeff's assertion, that the suit was brought by NexTech, is indeed correct. In fact, records show that Amazon did not even file a timely response, and when Amazon finally did file a response, it was after the allotted time period. The case was filed in November of 1998. Charles Kricfalusi is not an owner of NexTech, nor is he a director. The shares involved in this case did not belong to him. Side note: Is this person related to John Kricfalusi, the creator of "Ren and Stimpy"? Amazon did file a _later_ suit against Kricfalusi, his wife, and other unnamed entities, but it does not impact the execution of the court's order to Amazon. Federal Judge Heber issued an order on January 14th of 1999, in the form of a permanent injunction, requiring Amazon to immediately issue a new unrestricted certificate for the 224,000 shares of AZNT common stock. By the way, these shares were old, and the restriction had long since expired. The case, then, is indeed over, pending only Amazon's compliance with the federal judge's order. However, I have gathered from this thread that Amazon's track record on compliance is poor, so the next action would be (in the event of non-compliance), a contempt of court sanction, I would expect. Certainly the moving papers support that. Level Head