News Intel 7nm Delay Fallout; Law Firm Launches Securities Fraud Investigation

[bit_user]

You need at least as much proof to convince the court that there might be something there,it's called burden of proof.

In this case, I think the justification lies in the inconsistencies in their successive quarterly statements.

Where there's smoke, there's often fire. We've seen smoke, so now the firefighters are trying to see if there's a fire.

 

[bit_user]

Hefty amount for the attorneys and little to nothing for the investors. Scam Lawsuit like almost all class actions which are designed to create big payouts for law firms and do nothing for the economy or other parties. I would like to see the fees reduced to average attorney per hour rates. Legal extortion.

Without trying to defend everything about class action lawsuits, I want to point out that you don't have to like sharks, in order to acknowledge that they perform a useful service (i.e. keeping fish populations healthy, by eating the weak and diseased members). In a similar fashion, if misrepresentation does occur, then these lawsuits exact a cost that should serve as a deterrent for further malfeasance and could even trigger the dismissal of a bad CEO.

 

[Co BIY]

if misrepresentation does occur, then these lawsuits exact a cost that should serve as a deterrent for further malfeasance and could even trigger the dismissal of a bad CEO.

It seems like a shareholder complaint to the SEC would be a better way to handle it than leaving the protection of the shareholders to self interested legal sharks. The lawsuits extract a cost regardless of whether there was malfeasance (as does a legal inquiry by the SEC ).

Not sure I see sharks as helping to keep fish populations healthy. Sometimes they just make the waters unswimmable for everyone.

Now I wish to defend the practice of dividends - Why shouldn't investors press for the distribution of dividends when the company is making large profits? Well capitalized firms may not need to heavily invest to continue their business and many businesses may not have better investment options for the money than their individual shareholders.

 

[bit_user]

It seems like a shareholder complaint to the SEC would be a better way to handle it than leaving the protection of the shareholders to self interested legal sharks. The lawsuits extract a cost regardless of whether there was malfeasance (as does a legal inquiry by the SEC ).

My sense is that the SEC is a paper tiger, when it comes to things like misrepresentation.

I think I heard their favorite cases are insider-trading, since those tend to be somewhat easier to prove.

Not sure I see sharks as helping to keep fish populations healthy.

I can't tell if you're being literal or metaphorical.

Killing sharks negatively affects the marine ecosystem.[150][151] Jessica Morris of Humane Society International calls shark culling a "knee-jerk reaction" and says, "sharks are top order predators that play an important role in the functioning of marine ecosystems. We need them for healthy oceans."[152]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Shark_culling​

Humans don't really belong in the ocean, so the handful of attacks is more a problem of us swimming in their habitat than a problem with sharks being sharks. Even when they do attack, they often bite and realize the person isn't whatever they mistook it for (usually a seal). If they actually tried to eat the victims, we wouldn't have seen or heard from most of them.

Of course, shark attacks are bad. I hope someone develops some kind of automated defense system to spot sharks with drones, and then send robotic subs to scare them away.

Now I wish to defend the practice of dividends - Why shouldn't investors press for the distribution of dividends when the company is making large profits? Well capitalized firms may not need to heavily invest to continue their business and many businesses may not have better investment options for the money than their individual shareholders.

I've had a slight evolution of thinking about that, but you've got to admit that it's difficult to turn off the taps, for one thing. If we're talking about a company that needs to make large capital investments to remain competitive, like... say Intel, and through their track record of paying out lots of dividends, they've managed to accumulate a lot of shareholders who've come to expect it, they might eventually find it difficult to make the necessary investments to sustain future growth while continuing to feed the parasites... er, I mean shareholders. It often seems that when a company starts circling the drain, dividends are the last thing to go. I wouldn't have a problem with dividends, if they were really just cream off the top.

Look at it another way: Amazon, Facebook, and Google have never paid dividends. And Apple paid no dividends between 1995 and 2012.

My current employer pays out dividends, and the whole time I've worked for them, engineering has continued to get more and more squeezed for resources. And they dare to wonder why we're not gaining marketshare.