Anon | reply to Anon
Re: How Ignorant !!!
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. |
|
