On Saturday 14 July 2001 11:31 pm, Lee wrote:
| Not hardly. There is a little thing called standing. Unless a law
| firm can show that they have been injuried by Caldera's or Red
| Hat's actions and are suing on their own behalf they can not
| initiate a law suit in the courts, because they have no standing.
| What they can do is if they have already been retained by a party
| with standing i.e. an investor, they can try to expand it into a
| class action suit by locating as many of the injuried class as
| possible.
in theory, yes; in practice, no. in fact, at this very moment the
firm is advertising for a lead plaintiff. the precedent in class
actions is muddy and miserable; fact is, the entire notion ought to
be made illegal, as should a substantial part of existing tort law.
i absolutely guarantee you that no one went to a law firm saying that
they wished to recover damages arising from irregularities in the
caldera ipo. instead, the law firm, looking at the ipos the sec is
investigating in connection with bear stearns and csfb, started
filing suits and advertising for plaintiffs. which is why i was able
to write months ago that caldera would probably be sued -- i read the
same stuff.
--
dep
there's more to history than what's in books;
that's why it took so long to happen.
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
