Rock Guitar
join:2001-01-17
Columbus, OH
clubs:
| reply to icekodiak
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 | 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. |
|
Rock Guitar
join:2001-01-17
Columbus, OH
clubs: | 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 | 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?
|
|
Rock Guitar
join:2001-01-17
Columbus, OH
clubs:
| 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 | reply to Anon
If you read the complaint, they do have a lead plantiff. Her name is Helen Korsinsky. |
|
Anon | reply to 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? |
|
Rock Guitar
join:2001-01-17
Columbus, OH
clubs:
| 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. |
|
