MFE » Topics » Settled Cases

This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed May 7, 2009.
Settled Cases
 
In July 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California consolidated several purported stockholder derivative suits as In re McAfee, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 5:06CV03484 (JF) (the “Consolidated Action”). In September 2006, three identical lawsuits that had been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, were consolidated in that court (the “State Action”). The Consolidated Action and State Action asserted that we improperly backdated stock option grants for a period ending in May 2006. In December 2007, we reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in both Actions. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement in October 2008 and granted final approval in February 2009. We paid $13.8 million in the three months ended March 31, 2009 for this previously accrued settlement.
 
In the three months ended March 31, 2009, we recorded a benefit of $6.5 million related to reimbursements from insurance for legal fees we incurred related to cost of defense incurred in connection with our stock option


20


Table of Contents

 
MCAFEE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
 
investigation that commenced in May 2006. This benefit is reflected in the general and administrative line on our condensed consolidated statement of income.
 
These excerpts taken from the MFE 10-K filed Mar 2, 2009.
Settled Cases
 
In July 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California consolidated several purported stockholder derivative suits as In re McAfee, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 5:06CV03484 (JF) (the “Consolidated Action”). In September 2006, three identical lawsuits that had been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, were consolidated in that court (the “State Action”). The Consolidated Action and State Action asserted that we improperly backdated stock option grants for a period ending in May 2006. In December 2007, we reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in both Actions. The Court preliminary approved the settlement in October 2008 and granted final approval in February 2009. We accrued $13.8 million in the condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2006, due to the stock option investigation and restatement related to expected payments pursuant to the settlement.
 
Certain shareholders of Secure Computing filed lawsuits against Secure Computing and the members of its board of directors (the “Secure Computing Board”) alleging that the Secure Computing Board breached its fiduciary duties by executing an Agreement and Plan of Merger with McAfee in September 2008. We were accused of aiding and abetting the Secure Computing Board’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The related suits were ultimately consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara. In January 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a request to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated action without prejudice, which was granted by the Court on January 8, 2009, after a finding that neither the Plaintiffs nor their counsel derived any personal benefit from the Defendants through dismissal of the case.
 
In February 2008, a former executive notified us of his intent to seek arbitration of claims associated with his employment. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement resolving the dispute in its entirety, following a mediation held in December 2008.
 
On August 17, 2006, a patent infringement lawsuit — captioned Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 9:06CV174, (“Deep Nines litigation”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit asserted that (i) several of our Enterprise products infringe a Deep Nines’ patent and (ii) we falsely marked certain products with a McAfee patent that was abandoned after its issuance. On July 15, 2008, a jury found that certain applications of IntruShield infringe upon Deep Nines’ patent and awarded a one-time, lump sum payment for past and future damages. On July 29, 2008, we resolved all patent litigation matters with Deep Nines, Inc. by entering into a $25.0 million confidential settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, we acquired certain nonexclusive rights and entered into a mutual release of all related claims. In the three months ended June 30, 2008, we recorded $9.0 million of legal settlement costs. The remaining $16.0 million was recorded as an asset as of June 30, 2008. We are amortizing the asset to cost of product revenue in our consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income over the economic life, which is estimated to be the remaining life of the primary patent which expires in 2020. The case was dismissed on September 8, 2008.
 
Settled
Cases



 



In July 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated several purported
stockholder derivative suits as In re McAfee, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Master File No. 5:06CV03484 (JF) (the
“Consolidated Action”). In September 2006, three
identical lawsuits that had been filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, were
consolidated in that court (the “State Action”). The
Consolidated Action and State Action asserted that we improperly
backdated stock option grants for a period ending in May 2006.
In December 2007, we reached a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs in both Actions. The Court preliminary approved the
settlement in October 2008 and granted final approval in
February 2009. We accrued $13.8 million in the condensed
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2006, due
to the stock option investigation and restatement related to
expected payments pursuant to the settlement.


 



Certain shareholders of Secure Computing filed lawsuits against
Secure Computing and the members of its board of directors (the
“Secure Computing Board”) alleging that the Secure
Computing Board breached its fiduciary duties by executing an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with McAfee in September 2008. We
were accused of aiding and abetting the Secure Computing
Board’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The related suits
were ultimately consolidated in the Superior Court of California
in Santa Clara. In January 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a
request to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated action without
prejudice, which was granted by the Court on January 8,
2009, after a finding that neither the Plaintiffs nor their
counsel derived any personal benefit from the Defendants through
dismissal of the case.


 



In February 2008, a former executive notified us of his intent
to seek arbitration of claims associated with his employment.
The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement
resolving the dispute in its entirety, following a mediation
held in December 2008.


 



On August 17, 2006, a patent infringement
lawsuit — captioned Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee,
Inc., No. 9:06CV174, (“Deep Nines litigation”)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. The lawsuit asserted that (i) several of
our Enterprise products infringe a Deep Nines’ patent and
(ii) we falsely marked certain products with a McAfee
patent that was abandoned after its issuance. On July 15,
2008, a jury found that certain applications of IntruShield
infringe upon Deep Nines’ patent and awarded a one-time,
lump sum payment for past and future damages. On July 29,
2008, we resolved all patent litigation matters with Deep Nines,
Inc. by entering into a $25.0 million confidential
settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, we acquired
certain nonexclusive rights and entered into a mutual release of
all related claims. In the three months ended June 30,
2008, we recorded $9.0 million of legal settlement costs.
The remaining $16.0 million was recorded as an asset as of
June 30, 2008. We are amortizing the asset to cost of
product revenue in our consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income over the economic life, which is estimated
to be the remaining life of the primary patent which expires in
2020. The case was dismissed on September 8, 2008.


 




Settled
Cases



 



In July 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated several purported
stockholder derivative suits as In re McAfee, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Master File No. 5:06CV03484 (JF) (the
“Consolidated Action”). In September 2006, three
identical lawsuits that had been filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, were
consolidated in that court (the “State Action”). The
Consolidated Action and State Action asserted that we improperly
backdated stock option grants for a period ending in May 2006.
In December 2007, we reached a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs in both Actions. The Court preliminary approved the
settlement in October 2008 and granted final approval in
February 2009. We accrued $13.8 million in the condensed
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2006, due
to the stock option investigation and restatement related to
expected payments pursuant to the settlement.


 



Certain shareholders of Secure Computing filed lawsuits against
Secure Computing and the members of its board of directors (the
“Secure Computing Board”) alleging that the Secure
Computing Board breached its fiduciary duties by executing an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with McAfee in September 2008. We
were accused of aiding and abetting the Secure Computing
Board’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The related suits
were ultimately consolidated in the Superior Court of California
in Santa Clara. In January 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a
request to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated action without
prejudice, which was granted by the Court on January 8,
2009, after a finding that neither the Plaintiffs nor their
counsel derived any personal benefit from the Defendants through
dismissal of the case.


 



In February 2008, a former executive notified us of his intent
to seek arbitration of claims associated with his employment.
The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement
resolving the dispute in its entirety, following a mediation
held in December 2008.


 



On August 17, 2006, a patent infringement
lawsuit — captioned Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee,
Inc., No. 9:06CV174, (“Deep Nines litigation”)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. The lawsuit asserted that (i) several of
our Enterprise products infringe a Deep Nines’ patent and
(ii) we falsely marked certain products with a McAfee
patent that was abandoned after its issuance. On July 15,
2008, a jury found that certain applications of IntruShield
infringe upon Deep Nines’ patent and awarded a one-time,
lump sum payment for past and future damages. On July 29,
2008, we resolved all patent litigation matters with Deep Nines,
Inc. by entering into a $25.0 million confidential
settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, we acquired
certain nonexclusive rights and entered into a mutual release of
all related claims. In the three months ended June 30,
2008, we recorded $9.0 million of legal settlement costs.
The remaining $16.0 million was recorded as an asset as of
June 30, 2008. We are amortizing the asset to cost of
product revenue in our consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income over the economic life, which is estimated
to be the remaining life of the primary patent which expires in
2020. The case was dismissed on September 8, 2008.


 




Settled
Cases



 



In July 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated several purported
stockholder derivative suits as In re McAfee, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Master File No. 5:06CV03484 (JF) (the
“Consolidated Action”). In September 2006, three
identical lawsuits that had been filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, were
consolidated in that court (the “State Action”). The
Consolidated Action and State Action asserted that we improperly
backdated stock option grants for a period ending in May 2006.
In December 2007, we reached a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs in both Actions. The Court preliminary approved the
settlement in October 2008 and granted final approval in
February 2009. We accrued $13.8 million in the condensed
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2006, due
to the stock option investigation and restatement related to
expected payments pursuant to the settlement.


 



Certain shareholders of Secure Computing filed lawsuits against
Secure Computing and the members of its board of directors (the
“Secure Computing Board”) alleging that the Secure
Computing Board breached its fiduciary duties by executing an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with McAfee in September 2008. We
were accused of aiding and abetting the Secure Computing
Board’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The related suits
were ultimately consolidated in the Superior Court of California
in Santa Clara. In January 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a
request to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated action without
prejudice, which was granted by the Court on January 8,
2009, after a finding that neither the Plaintiffs nor their
counsel derived any personal benefit from the Defendants through
dismissal of the case.


 



In February 2008, a former executive notified us of his intent
to seek arbitration of claims associated with his employment.
The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement
resolving the dispute in its entirety, following a mediation
held in December 2008.


 



On August 17, 2006, a patent infringement
lawsuit — captioned Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee,
Inc., No. 9:06CV174, (“Deep Nines litigation”)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. The lawsuit asserted that (i) several of
our Enterprise products infringe a Deep Nines’ patent and
(ii) we falsely marked certain products with a McAfee
patent that was abandoned after its issuance. On July 15,
2008, a jury found that certain applications of IntruShield
infringe upon Deep Nines’ patent and awarded a one-time,
lump sum payment for past and future damages. On July 29,
2008, we resolved all patent litigation matters with Deep Nines,
Inc. by entering into a $25.0 million confidential
settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, we acquired
certain nonexclusive rights and entered into a mutual release of
all related claims. In the three months ended June 30,
2008, we recorded $9.0 million of legal settlement costs.
The remaining $16.0 million was recorded as an asset as of
June 30, 2008. We are amortizing the asset to cost of
product revenue in our consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income over the economic life, which is estimated
to be the remaining life of the primary patent which expires in
2020. The case was dismissed on September 8, 2008.


 




This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed Aug 7, 2008.
Settled Cases
 
On August 17, 2006, a patent infringement lawsuit — captioned Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 9:06CV174, (“Deep Nines litigation”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit asserted that (i) several of our Enterprise products infringe a Deep Nines’ patent and (ii) we falsely marked certain products with a McAfee patent that was abandoned after its issuance. On June 18, 2008, the District Court granted, in part, McAfee’s motion for summary judgment, thereby removing all accused products from the case except IntruShield, one of our network protection offerings. On July 15, 2008, a jury found that certain applications of IntruShield infringe upon Deep Nines’ patent and awarded a one-time, lump sum payment for past and future damages. On July 29, 2008 we resolved all patent litigation matters with Deep Nines, Inc. by entering into a $25.0 confidential settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, we acquired certain nonexclusive rights and mutual release of all related claims. In the three months ended June 30, 2008, we recorded $9.0 million of legal settlement costs. The remaining $16.0 million was recorded as a prepaid asset as of June 30, 2008, and will be amortized to cost of product revenues in our condensed consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income over the economic life, which is estimated to be the remaining life of the primary patent which expires in 2020. We expect dismissal of all litigation pending between us and Deep Nines, Inc. within 90 days.
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts for $15.5 million. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets which were valued at $9.3 million and we expensed $6.2 million for prior claims, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006, with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.


48


Table of Contents

This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed May 12, 2008.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.
 
These excerpts taken from the MFE 10-K filed Feb 27, 2008.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.
 
On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation” into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005, we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited $50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions, such as engaging independent consultants to examine and recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure compliance with federal securities laws.
 
Settled
Cases



 



In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a
breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June
2002 in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and
recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at
$9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for
$6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as
expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the
balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior
periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.


 



On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had
commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation”
into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005,
we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection
with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited
$50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the
designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC
entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also
agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil
penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions,
such as engaging independent consultants to examine and
recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure
compliance with federal securities laws.


 




This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed Dec 21, 2007.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired


29


Table of Contents

 
MCAFEE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
 
and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.
 
On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation” into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005, we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited $50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions, such as engaging independent consultants to examine and recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure compliance with federal securities laws.
 
This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed Dec 21, 2007.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.
 
On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation” into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005, we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited $50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions, such as engaging independent consultants to examine and recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure compliance with federal securities laws.
 
This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed Dec 21, 2007.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed on March 1, 2007 and final payment of the settlement was tendered on May 4, 2007.
 
On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation” into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005, we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited $50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions, such as engaging independent consultants to examine and recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure compliance with federal securities laws.
 
This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed Dec 21, 2007.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed on March 1, 2007 and final payment of the settlement was tendered on May 4, 2007.
 
On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation” into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005, we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited $50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions, such as engaging independent consultants to examine and recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure compliance with federal securities laws.
 
This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-K filed Dec 21, 2007.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.
 
On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation” into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005, we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited $50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also


190


Table of Contents

 
MCAFEE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
 
agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions, such as engaging independent consultants to examine and recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure compliance with federal securities laws.
 
In September 2003, we entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the In re Network Associates, Inc. II Securities Litigation, which was originally filed in December 2000. Under the settlement agreement we paid $70.0 million, which was recorded as litigation settlement in our consolidated statement of income for 2002. In 2004, we received $25.0 million from our insurance carriers related to this litigation.
 
This excerpt taken from the MFE 10-Q filed Dec 21, 2007.
Settled Cases
 
In February 2007, we reached a confidential settlement of a breach of contract, fraud and bad faith lawsuit filed in June 2002 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. As part of the settlement, we acquired and recorded ownership of intangible assets valued at $9.3 million with all remaining claims settled for $6.2 million, of which $5.0 million was recognized as expense in the three months ended June 30, 2006 with the balance of $1.2 million being expensed in 2004 and prior periods. The case was dismissed in March 2007.
 
On March 22, 2002, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a “Formal Order of Private Investigation” into our accounting practices. On September 29, 2005, we announced we had reserved $50.0 million in connection with the proposed settlement with the SEC and we had deposited $50.0 million in an escrow account with the SEC as the designated beneficiary. On February 9, 2006, the SEC entered the final judgment for the settlement with us. We also agreed to release $50.0 million to the SEC for the civil penalty on February 13, 2006 and certain other conditions, such as engaging independent consultants to examine and recommend improvements to our internal controls to ensure compliance with federal securities laws.
 
Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki