  hernang7542Helpless In The Face Of Your BeautyPremium
join:2001-04-25
Wilmington, DE |  Nail in the Cofffin?!?
Run! Run while you still can! Save yourselves!
--
"All Sunshine and No Rain makes a Desert" -- Old Arab Proverb | |
|
 | | Anon | Re: Nail in the Cofffin?!? Run?
And go to where? Rhythms?
If Covad goes down we're going to wind up at the sole mercy of the ILECs. | |
|
| | | | Re: Nail in the Cofffin?!? Actually the ILECs will still have competition in the form of high speed cable access. Just depends on which aspect of the competing technologies consumers deem important. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Nail in the Cofffin?!? Cable modem monopolies vs. ILEC DSL is COMPETITION? Boy, if that is the case, we are in BIG trouble. Cable and telephone monopolies have unofficial, wink-&-a-nod gentlemen agreements to not tread on each others revenue streams. And current cable modem technology is crap, as people will find out as these DOCSIS systems start to really become loaded with users. It is a dark future if no one is left standing to challenge the monopolies. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Nail in the Cofffin?!? said by NGNnow:
Cable modem monopolies vs. ILEC DSL is COMPETITION? Boy, if that is the case, we are in BIG trouble. Cable and telephone monopolies have unofficial, wink-&-a-nod gentlemen agreements to not tread on each others revenue streams. And current cable modem technology is crap, as people will find out as these DOCSIS systems start to really become loaded with users. It is a dark future if no one is left standing to challenge the monopolies.
Please back this claim up. It is ludicrous to make a claim such as the "wink and nod" agreements between competing companies based on the fact that there are SOME markets that don't have the two going head on.
AOL/Time Warner Cable for instance offers Roadrunner in multiple markets in the midwest where Ameritech also offers DSL. This is just one example. There would be too much cost associated with aligning marketing plans to NOT offer service in one area based on the markets of a totally different company. One might as well say that Burger King has an agreement with McDonalds that they won't be within 10 blocks of each other in certain cities so that people won't have a choice in fast food.
michael74 | |
|
| | | Carli5
join:2001-05-29
Sacramento, CA | Not if cable access is not available. | |
|
| | | Carli5
join:2001-05-29
Sacramento, CA | Not if cable access is not available.
If Covad folds, I WILL have to use PacBell for DSL service. | |
|
|  basshiveTrue-Playaz
join:2001-02-26
Waterford, WI | We are far from the end here. While this lawsuit certainly has the potential for great harm, it has the potential for great good as well. Covad *COULD* emerge victorious and this could spark a turn around for them. Almost every company in their position faces this sort of thing thanks to the money hungry snobs who don't even understand the technology they so blindly invested in.
We have not heard the last from Covad and while everyone is kicking them Im sure they are quietly continuing to go about business and keep things working.
All of you people saying run run are doing nothing but making things worse. If we all ran then what would be the point of Covad being in business? Running is not and never has been the solution. If anything they need more not less.
--
..::drum and bass cannot be stopped::.. | |
|
| | | | Can't swing a dead cat without hitting an attorney Yawn. Every company has plenty of problems, both common and unusual, day after day.
The entire technology industry has been pursued by time-wasting ambulance-chasing lawyers ever since the Nasdaq started to go south more than a year ago.
Lawyers pestering management is a very common problem and it won't change a thing. If Covad was going to succeed before, it has just as much of a chance as it ever did; if it was doomed to failure, then this won't hasten their demise any faster. | |
|
| | hernang7542Helpless In The Face Of Your BeautyPremium
join:2001-04-25
Wilmington, DE |  Re: Nail in the Cofffin?!?
Just don't see how they can keep running and pay for all the litigation at the same time. Brace youreselves for a Chapter 11 announcement in the very near future if the courts allow the suit to go forward.
--
"All Sunshine and No Rain makes a Desert" -- Old Arab Proverb | |
|
| | Anon | This isn't news. This is just one in a series of class action lawsuits that were filed by different law firms for the same issue. Some of you might remember that approximately 6-10 were filed within a two-week period back in November.
Covad attorneys I'm sure are already working those cases, so the cost of adding another suit will be minimal if any, and isn't going to add to current operating costs. That doesn't mean this is a good thing, it just means that it won't cost anymore money. Keep in mind that this case and all of the others won't conclude for years. If Covad has to pay, it will be well down the road, so don't expect this to be the catalyst that drives Covad out of business immediately.
They claim that at their current burn rate, cash on hand is can carry them through July 2002. If you look at their Q1 income statement, this account is true. They had enough cash at the end of March to carry them a little over 5 quarters, given their current quarterly cash expenses.
I suspect that they'll attempt to secure funding or seek purchase through the middle of May 2002. By then, their Q1 2002 earnings should have been out for a few weeks, and their next one wouldn't be until July 2002, the point at which all money will have run out. If their earnings improvements don't attract offers by the middle of May 2002, bankruptcy is imminent.
Even if they have to declare bankruptcy, the cash is still there to fund their network through July 2002. If you have Covad DSL, it will be about a year before they liquidate their network, if it happens at all, so don't think that you have to find a new provider immediately. Also, with the lessons learned from the NP debacle, I expect that end-users will be converted in a more expeditious manner, and those who can't be converted will at least be given a little more forewarning. No one expected Northpoint's sudden end, but people are closely watching Covad. | |
|
| | | They broke a major securities law and they should be punished for what they did.
Covad has to take responsibilty for their actions, a sentiment that is sorely lacking in many DSL ISP's.
Maybe this will set an example for the rest of the industry to shape up or ship out.
I have speakeasy for DSL and I know they use Covad, however; when Covad committed this act, everybody is going to pay for what they did.
Have a nice day.
Scott
Los Angeles, CA | |
|
| | | Anon | Re: Nail in the Cofffin?!? | |
|
Yardog
join:2001-02-17
Denver, CO | Covad- waiting for a taker Dont worry AT@T will take over Covad and will be even better. Just a matter of time. | |
|
| basshiveTrue-Playaz
join:2001-02-26
Waterford, WI | Re: Covad- waiting for a taker said by Yardog:
Dont worry AT@T will take over Covad and will be even better. Just a matter of time.
Yeah. Like NP right?
--
..::drum and bass cannot be stopped::.. | |
|
| | | | Re: Covad- waiting for a taker Actually, Verizon wanted to buy out NorthPoint, but they backed out at the last minute.
AT&T has proven to be a good ISP; just look at all those Road Runner reviews. Much better than Verizon, who sometimes can't even keep their routing straight. | |
|
| | | I agree that AT&T is very likely to buy out Rhythms' and Covad's equipment if they go belly up.
AT&T already got a whole bunch of Copper Mountain DSLAM from Northpoint fire sale and it's expected to start its DSL operation very soon. I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T grab the rest of Rhythms to expand its network.
As for COVAD, AT&T has been an active reseller of COVAD. It is positive that AT&T won't let its current DSL customers helpless if COVAD goes down. | |
|
| | | | Re: Covad- waiting for a taker Don't count on it VinceLee. I don't know that "T" knows their hinnie from a hole in the ground yet.
I think they are waiting for the right moment for the "consumer" broadband spin-off to emerge and carry most of the debt load with it. What they have to spend on buying fire sale CLEC DSL hardware is chump change to the debt load they already carry. A small price to pay for eliminating competition in the non-business market.
If the US market wants a broadband alternative to DSL and the distance limitations in effect, either the spin-off will have to be sold (not likely), or government funding will be needed to keep them afloat. Ha ha. Told you it was get even time for Ma Bell. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature | |
|
|  jipper
join:2001-01-04
Stanton, MI | I don't see AT&T buying Covad. Not when SBC has 6% of owner ship and wants more. What a better way for SBC to expand then to have a sold network used only for business accounts with the SDSL and IDSL. | |
|
| | Hmmm....... this again! | |
|
| | | Re: Hmmm....... this again! It doesn't appear that this is "It's like the entire playground is rallying around the local bully". These persons that have acquired Covad common stock are genuinely upset because of an alleged violation the federal securities laws. Now Verizon filing their suit against Covad appeared to be quite obviously an attempt to drain them of their capital. I just don’t see all these people joining a class action suit against Covad because they all will have something to gain by putting them out of business. If Covad is guilty of these claims, then unfortunately they should have to pay the price.
As far as various people’s statements about running while you can... it seems that they are concerned about whether or not they will have connectivity in the not so distant future. Many of those who experienced the loss of service due to the Northpoint closure can understand what this is like. Yes, dumping their Covad service will hurt the company but we all have to look out for ourselves and the companies that we work for. Believing in a company’s ability to survive is a wonderful thing. But if YOUR company’s business depends on your connectivity being there, are you willing to gamble on that? | |
|
| | | | Re: Hmmm....... this again! Very well put. It is refreshing to read an fair-minded and thoughtful posting. | |
|
| | basshiveTrue-Playaz
join:2001-02-26
Waterford, WI | Well, I dont know what kind of *business* you are in or if you even are for that matter, but I can assure you that not only would I stay with Covad but I would take steps to ensure an easy cut-over in the event that it was needed. If you are going to be 100% closed off and at a loss business wise if Covad turns out the lights then you are already using the wrong provider. I can understand needing to lookout for yourselves. I feel bad for the people caught in the turmoil of the NP fiasco. However, based on your logic, everytime something happens that is negative everyone should jump ship and change etc etc. Would you suggest the same if something like this happened to your company? Would you tell all your employees to jump ship because they should be looking out for their own? Should all of us tell people to run from your company? Doesn't sound like good business to me friend and I doubt you would appreciate it much yourself.
Im very passionate about this issue because I depend on Covad. I find it very sad that people now-a-days complain, whine, cry, and scream about how little competition there is for DSL outside of the Bells and yet those same people are ready to watch one of the last standing die. Very sad indeed.
--
..::drum and bass cannot be stopped::.. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Hmmm....... this again! I really don’t see what kind of "business" that I’m in to be relevant to this issue. You suggest that if connectivity to a particular business is in any way important to it’s success then they not use Covad. Is that how you defend them? You do know that a major portion of their business is business grade circuits right? And what exactly is an "easy cut-over"? Going to the telco? Going to Rhythms (delisted)? Neither have proven themselves to be an easy experience. What are the users of IDSL supposed to do? I haven’t seen too many telcos offering IDSL circuits. And another thing, an "easy cut-over" just doesn’t exist right now. Some people that lost their Northpoint service still haven’t been able to get broadband service with another provider. And even if they did, the majority of them didn’t happen overnight.
Regarding your response to the "running while you can". I wasn’t suggesting that everyone do that. Read the post again. I was merely pointing out the fact that people should be aware that they are risking their connectivity and their ability to secure replacement service in a timely manner if in fact Covad has to close shop. And no, I would not recommend that all of our employees jump ship if we were to ever get into trouble. But, I would respect their decision if they decided to leave based on their concern of personal well being. I don’t know if you have a family depending on you to provide for them but there are some of us that do. If I were faced with having to decide to either…
A - Stay with a company that looks as if they COULD go out of business at any time
Or
B - Try and secure employment with a financially sound company
I would have to go with B so that I can feel more secure in my ability to provide for them. That's what I mean when I say look out for ourselves. Again, I am not suggesting that everyone take off in an all-out sprint to drop their Covad lines. Just be prepared. If the line isn't that important to you, by all means, keep it and ride it out. Maybe everything will turn out just fine.
You stated that you are very passionate about this because you depend on Covad. How exactly do you depend on them and just what do you plan to do if you loose your line? Is there a turn-key solution just waiting for you to say "go"? Will it go live the day after if Covad’s network goes dark?
I didn't create this world, I just live in it. | |
|
| | | How Ignorant !!! This lawsuit is for the investors who have been defrauded, not the lawyers... you silly person. And what are people suppose to do who invested money in a company that defrauded them? Just let them get ripped off? Or how about hiring a lawyer? Your lawyer comment shows how really ignorant you are. | |
|
| | | Anon | Re: How Ignorant !!! In a class action of this nature NO ONE makes any appreciable money except for the lead plantiff and all the ambulance chasing lawyers involved.
Been there, done that. Get a clue yourself. | |
|
| | | | | Re: How Ignorant !!! Yeah, and like you could fight a company with your small little claim if you didn't have a class action. Right. Like you know what YOU are talking about. | |
|
| | | | | Anon | Re: How Ignorant !!! Actually I do.
Actually I could.
Class actions WITHOUT A LEAD PLAINTIFF are not brought up by a wronged investor, they are brought up by a law firm looking to cover a slow period. Then they SEARCH for an investor (the lead) to say he was wronged and start signing up others (who will receive little to nothing). It is as simple as that. There are no "wronged investors" looking for justice at this point so give the violin music a rest.
Lost some money yourself?
| |
|
| | | | | | | Re: How Ignorant !!! I see. So you must work at a law firm and that is how things are done there... or could you possibly just be talking out of the side of your... head?
According to you, all these class actions are completely fabricated and all those plaintiffs went kicking and screaming to the courthouse. And all those judges were tricked by these law firms into believing that there were legitimate legal claims. Right... | |
|
| | | | | | Anon | If you read the complaint, they do have a lead plantiff. Her name is Helen Korsinsky. | |
|
| | | | | | Anon | To add to that, the complaint presents a pretty good case against the underwriting firms, including investigations that are ongoing by the SEC. However, the evidence against Covad officers appears to be purely speculative. Maybe they have more substantiating evidence against Covad officers than what is laid out in the complaint. However, if they did, I would think that they would include it like they did evidence pointing to wrong-doing on the part of the underwriters.
By the way guys, is this back and forth attack on one and other really necessary? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: How Ignorant !!! said by UND1975:
By the way guys, is this back and forth attack on one and other really necessary?
Uncle. You are right. I give up. I just get very frustrated by the attacks on the lawyers, which totally detracts from the real issues.
Also, lawsuit complaints only are required to state a cause of action against a party so as to put the party on notice to defend itself. That is why I have been saying that if Covad is innocent, then they have nothing to worry about.
The lawyers must include in their complaint all parties who may be liable, otherwise their clients loose the right to proceed against them. They will now conduct discovery proceedings with the power of subpoena, which may or may not exonerate Covad. | |
|
darrelc
join:2001-04-26
Indianapolis, IN | Bad news for us and Covad all the way around... | |
|
| | | Re: Bad news for us and Covad all the way around... [QUOTE=darrelc]..........In the financial condition Covad is in, losing either of these lawsuits will hurt tremendously...............[QUOTE]»investor.cnet.com/investor/news/···.fin..ne
According to the CNET article above, the math is against them in any event.
--
Pupowski | |
|
| | Covad Delisted? As of 1:35PM, COVDE is no longer trading (I think). All finance sites either don't recognize the symbol or report 0 volume.
What's going on? | |
|
| | | Re: Covad Delisted? Covad is no longer on the delisted list. I found out a few nights ago they were dropping the E.
As for the lawsuits filed against them........ I dunno people, I have seen Covad do some shady things in the past, maybe it is finally coming back to byte them in the ass! | |
|
| | | The "E" had nothing to do with delisting. It was due to the financials being delayed. The Nasdaq dropped the "E" because Covad is no longer deliquent. The ticker is back to being COVD.
The delisting is entirely different. | |
|
| | Covad Symbol Changed It appears that Covad is trading under the ticker symbol COVD again (the E in COVDE is a symbol of noncompliance with NASDAQ rules).
This is a good sign, I guess (hope?). | |
|
| | |  Re: Covad Symbol Changed
| |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| Stay with Covad I'm staying with Covad because they offer the best DSL I've used. It's fast and reliable. My local telephone company offers DSL at half the speed with constant outages.
and still no cable in my area.
...
[text was edited by author 2001-06-27 16:32:14] | |
|
| | | Re: Stay with Covad Me too! (Earthlink with Covad/Mindspring package)
No cable modem where I'm at either, even though AT&T Broadband has promised it for over a year now. | |
|
| | | Anon | Re: Stay with Covad Me three!!! I just ordered a DSL line from Earthlink with Covad. I had Telocity and did not like their service. I hope I'm sticking with this one.
No cable connection in my area! | |
|
|  scoobyPremium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL
kudos:1 | Amen! I had ameritech dsl up until recently and its just horrid. Ordered covad 1.5/384 from Speakeasy. | |
|
|
| Anon | This isn't News!!! Sorry, I posted this the first time in the wrong spot...
This isn't news. This is just another one in a series of class action lawsuits that were filed by different law firms for the same issue. Some of you might remember that approximately 6-10 were filed within a two-week period back in November.
Covad attorneys I'm sure are already working those cases, so the cost of adding another suit will be minimal if any, and isn't going to add to current operating costs. That doesn't mean this is a good thing, it just means that it won't cost anymore money. Keep in mind that this case and all of the others won't conclude for years. If Covad has to pay, it will be well down the road, so don't expect this to be the catalyst that drives Covad out of business immediately.
They claim that at their current burn rate, cash on hand is can carry them through July 2002. If you look at their Q1 income statement, this account is true. They had enough cash at the end of March to carry them a little over 5 quarters, given their current quarterly cash expenses.
I suspect that they'll attempt to secure funding or seek purchase through the middle of May 2002. By then, their Q1 2002 earnings should have been out for a few weeks, and their next one wouldn't be until July 2002, the point at which all money will have run out. If their earnings improvements don't attract offers by the middle of May 2002, bankruptcy is imminent.
Even if they have to declare bankruptcy, the cash is still there to fund their network through July 2002. If you have Covad DSL, it will be about a year before they liquidate their network, if it happens at all, so don't think that you have to find a new provider immediately. Also, with the lessons learned from the NP debacle, I expect that end-users will be converted in a more expeditious manner, and those who can't be converted will at least be given a little more forewarning. No one expected Northpoint's sudden end, but people are closely watching Covad. | |
|
dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN | What REALLY REALLY irks me... is that the suit is against Covad when the complaint is really against actions by the Underwriters. Covad isn't the first to run into this problem. While some Underwriters may do some things that I would consider to be less than above board (and ethically, completely underhanded, IMHO), the actions are THEIRS (underwriters), and not the company. They likely didn't even know the actions taken. I believe RedHat is also finding itself in a similar position.
Why don't these jerks go after the Underwriters? It seems if there IS a problem legally, they are the cause and should be the defendant. I can only guess because some that I would consider more unethical than the underwriters is that they might have a little more legal incentive to fight harder and longer to insure they won (as Underwriters would have potentially a LOT to loose if they just settled). sleaze and greed surface yet again. | |
|
| | Anon | Re: What REALLY REALLY irks me... They are going after the Underwriters. The defendants are listed as Covad Communications Group, Inc., Robert E. Knowling, Jr., Charles McMinn, Timothy Leahy, Frank Marshall, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Incorporated. | |
|
| | Legitimate Lawsuit We have courts with lawyers and laws so that when people have grievances they have a place to go to get them resolved. The alternative is pick up a gun and go shoot someone.
Everyone seems to want to feel sorry for poor Covad. Well, what about the investors who may have been defrauded. Let them have their day in court. If Covad is innocent, then all you company cheerleaders have nothing to worry about. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| Anon | You guys need to be educated!!! I am a technician and WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE!!!!!!!! We just closed Bluestar which helps the financial situation in a major way. As long as we keep getting paid we will start turning profit by early to mid 2002. So just hold your horses on bailing.
The lawsuit will prove that we are the winners. We have a lot of documentation to fight this one!! | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| Anon | Does everyone here read before they speak? This post isn't directed at anyone in particular. It's just an attempt to get the discussion back on track and centered around fact instead of speculation. There seems to be a lot of unfounded accusation on this site written with little thought.
I've read the complaint that these attorneys filed in District Court. It's posted on the website of one of the law firms. In the complaint they show some fairly good evidence to point to wrong-doing on the part of the underwriting firms, yet the evidence is still not mature. It's speculative, and depends on the findings of on-going investigations by the SEC. Apparently, the SEC has reason to believe that several Underwriting Firms used the questionable tactics mentioned in this article to inflate the prices of IPO stocks. However, they are still investigating. If the findings are conclusive, this case holds water against the Underwriters. If not, it will be thrown out of court.
The evidence against Covad and its officers is purely speculative, and there isn't much in here that leads me to believe that they can prove the accusations. Basically, it states that if the Underwriting firms were using questionable tactics, the corporate officers had to know what was going on by virtue of their positions. That's going to be pretty difficult to prove.
This all occurred during the stock boom of '99 and '00. So, they are stating that the corporate officers had to know that something was inflating the price of the stock, and they should have investigated. Covad stock was increasing in price like every other tech company with an idea and a few engineers working to put it together. Why would they have reason to question it?
The relationship of a corporation to an underwriting firm is like the relationship of a corporation to a public accounting firm. You would assume that for the money you're paying, the company is doing right. If your accountant is doctoring the books and embezzling money from you, are you neccesarily going to know about it? You may find out about it eventually, in which case you fire the bastard. If he's not overly greedy, and only does for a while, you may never find out about it. Just because you're a corporate officer doesn't mean that it would be instantaneously evident - particularly if he's doing a damned good job of covering it up. Nor does it mean that you would be directly responsible for his actions, unless of course you were assisting in the cover up.
The SEC investigations aren't even over yet, so they really don't know if they have a case. My thought is that they've filed it to get ahead of the game since it could take a few years to get a verdict.
As far as the evidence linking Covad and its officers, good luck gentlemen. | |
|
| | | Re: Does everyone here read before they speak? | |
|
|
|
