VLKAY » Topics » Item 1. Legal Proceedings

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 22, 2010.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary conduct of our business, we are subject to periodic lawsuits, investigations and claims, including routine employment matters. The following is a summary of legal proceedings to which we are a party at this time.

On June 2, 2009, Valley Process Systems, Inc. (“VPS, Inc.”), a subcontractor utilized in the initial construction phase of the Company’s Newark location, filed suit against the general contractor for the project,

 

21


Table of Contents

Gordon Prill, Inc. (“Gordon Prill”), BMR-Gateway Blvd., LLC (the “Landlord”), and Does 1-25, inclusive in Superior Court of the State of California in Alameda County, CA, alleging monies due, breach of written contract, quantum meruit, and foreclosure on the mechanic’s lien. In the VPS, Inc. action, Landlord joined us by filing a cross-complaint on July 27, 2009, alleging breach of the lease agreement dated April 29, 2008, and seeking indemnification. Both actions allege damages in the amount of $343,562 and seek reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.

On July 14, 2009, Sprig Electric Co., a subcontractor utilized in the initial construction phase of our Newark location, filed suit against Gordon Prill, the Landlord, and Does 1-100, inclusive in Superior Court of the State of California in Alameda County, CA, alleging monies due, breach of written contract, quantum meruit, and foreclosure on the mechanic’s lien. In the Sprig Electric Co. action, the Landlord joined us by filing a cross-complaint on September 29, 2009, alleging breach of the lease agreement dated April 29, 2008, and seeking indemnification. The Sprig Electric Co. action alleges damages in the amount of $584,068 and both actions seek reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.

On August 4, 2009, Gordon Prill filed suit against us, the Landlord, and Does 1-250, inclusive in Superior Court of the State of California in Alameda County, CA, alleging breach of written contract, foreclosure on the mechanic’s lien, and statutory penalties under California Civil Code sections 3260 and 3260.1. This action alleges damages in the amount of $1,595,523 and seeks reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses. The damages in this action include the $343,562 in the VPS, Inc. action and the $584,068 in the Sprig Electric Co. action.

On September 9, 2009, the Landlord filed an unlawful detainer action in Superior Court of the State of California in Alameda County, CA against us alleging damages in the amount of $838,078 and to recover possession of the premises. On December 17, 2009, we executed a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) with the Landlord in the above action. According to the terms of the Settlement, we will pay the amount of base rent proportionate to the amount of financing (the “Proceeds”) obtained in excess of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) gross up to and including Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). For instance, if we obtain (a) less than or equal to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in Proceeds, then we shall not be required to make payments of Base Rent under the Lease at that time, (b) more than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in Proceeds, then we shall be required to make payments of Base Rent in the following amount: the quotient of (i) the product of (A) the amount of Base Rent otherwise payable pursuant to the Lease times (B) the difference between (1) the amount of aggregate Proceeds minus (2) Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) divided by (ii) one million (1,000,000).

Additionally, we will use our best efforts to minimize any utility expenses incurred in operating the building. We have until June 1, 2010, to cure all alleged defaults under the lease (which the Landlord alleges include failure to pay rent and failure to remove various mechanic’s liens recorded against the property), provided the Landlord has not delivered us a 15-day notice of its intention to terminate the Lease (the “Termination Notice”). If the Landlord provides us with a Termination Notice, we must vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the Termination Notice.

In lieu of a trial, the Parties have stipulated to a judgment of possession in the event that we breach the Settlement Agreement for 1) failure to pay rent as indicated in the Settlement, 2) failure to cure all alleged defaults under the lease, and/or 3) failure to vacate the premises after a proper notice of termination or if any alleged defaults have not been cured by June 1, 2010. If it is alleged that we have not used our best efforts to minimize utility expenses, we have five days to cure that default under the Settlement prior to the Landlord entering the stipulated judgment. If the Landlord seeks to have the judgment enforced, it must provide us with 24 hours notice prior to the court hearing.

The Landlord is reserving all rights to seek the remaining alleged amounts of rent due, as well as any claims related to various mechanic’s liens recorded against the property by contractors and material suppliers.

 

22


Table of Contents

On January 6, 2010, New York State Urban Development, d/b/a/ Empire State Development Corporation (“ESDC”), filed a breach of contract action against us. This action stems from the Grant Disbursement Award we entered into with ESDC when we relocated our headquarters to New York in 2004. ESDC is seeking $420,000 in damages in this action. The parties are currently negotiating a settlement agreement of the action, the terms of which are now indeterminate.

The damages sought in these cases were previously recorded as liabilities on our balance sheet at the time the original invoices were received for services performed at the Newark facility or in the case of the ESDC matter, at the time the grant funds were received.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 22, 2010.

(e) Legal Proceedings

        In the normal course of business, the Company may be a party to legal proceedings. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, except as mentioned below.

        On December 21, 2007 the Company's registered office in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada received a claim filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, alleging a breach of a letter of intent the Company entered into with Network Capital, Inc. (NCI) in relation to a potential tax monetization transaction. NCI filed its claim in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Judicial District, Canada and seeks specific performance or damages in the amount of $35.0 million plus costs. The claim was not properly served and to date no proper service has been made. The Company believes this claim to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend it, if necessary.

These excerpts taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 22, 2010.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are, from time to time, parties to various legal proceedings arising out of our businesses. We believe, however, that there are no proceedings pending or threatened against us, which, if determined adversely, would have a material, adverse effect upon our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Legal Proceedings

We are, from time to time, parties to various legal proceedings arising out of our businesses. We believe, however, that other than the proceedings discussed below, there are no proceedings pending or threatened against us, which, if determined adversely, would have a material adverse effect upon our business financial conditions, results of operations or liquidity.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 22, 2010.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

CTI is currently named a defendant in Civil Action No. 06-706 in Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts. Filing suit against CTI is Omniglow, LLC (the former novelty business of CTI which was sold on January 23, 2006). CTI sold certain assets and liabilities related to the novelty and retail business to certain former shareholders and management (the “Omniglow Buyers”). This was done because CTI sought to retain only the Omniglow Corporation business activities associated with the government, military and safety business. During 2006, CTI and the Omniglow Buyers commenced litigation and arbitration proceedings against one another. Claims include breaches of a lease and breaches of various other agreements between CTI and the Omniglow Buyers. The Omniglow Buyers seek compensatory damages of $1.4 million, to be trebled, and recovery of costs and legal fees. CTI has filed for damages of $368,000 against the Omniglow Buyers. CTI continues to rigorously defend our position on these matters, as we believe the Omniglow Buyers’ claims to be without merit. Court hearings were held and completed in October 2008. A decision is expected in 2010.

13


 
 
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 22, 2010.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

The Company operates in a legal and regulatory environment that exposes it to potentially significant litigation risks. As a result, the Company is involved in various disputes and legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration and regulatory investigations, including a number of investigatory matters and legal proceedings arising out of customer allegations related to past commissioned sales of alternative investment products. In 2007 through the first quarter of 2009 a substantial amount (approximately 10% to 20%) of the Company's sales of commissioned products were in private placements of alternative products, two of which as of December 31, 2009 (Medical Capital Corporation and related issuer entities and Provident Royalties, LLC. and related issuer entities) were placed in receivership by action of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and issuers of certain other alternative products sold by the Company are in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy or may have financial difficulties. Additionally, difficult economic conditions in general and the stock market decline have contributed to decline in broker-dealer subsidiary client portfolio values. As a result of such alleged failings of alternative products and the uncertainty of client recovery from the various product issuers, the Company is subject to regulatory scrutiny and a number of recently instituted legal or arbitration proceedings, including two recently instituted proceedings seeking certification as class actions which name the Company as one of a number of defendants and allege various securities or conduct violations, one with respect to private placements of Medical Capital Corporation and related issuer entities and the other with regard to private placements of Provident Royalties, LLC and related issuer entities. The Company intends to vigorously contest the allegations of the various proceedings and believes that there are multiple meritorious legal and fact based defenses in these matters. Such cases are subject to many uncertainties, and their outcome is often difficult to predict, including the impact on operations or on the financial statements, particularly in the earlier stages of a case. The Company makes provisions for cases brought against it when, in the opinion of management after seeking legal advice, it is probable that a liability exists, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The current proceedings are subject to uncertainties and as such, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or a range of loss that may result.

These excerpts taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 22, 2010.

Legal Proceedings

We are a party to litigation and other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of our business, including proceedings involving disputes with contractors or vendors. Management does not believe that there are any legal proceedings pending against us, other than the proceedings relating to rights-of-way described below, that, if determined in a manner adverse to us, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

To maintain our fiber optic network, we have obtained easements, rights-of-way, franchises and licenses from various third parties, including actual and potential competitors, local governments, private real property owners and others. We may not be able to continue to use or have access to all of our existing easements, rights-of-way, franchises and licenses or to renew or replace them after they expire. Since 2001, numerous third parties have initiated legal proceedings in a number of states challenging some of our licenses to use the rights-of-way of others, including our licenses to use the rights-of-way of Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power Company. The plaintiffs’ lawsuits claim that we may not use some or all of the fiber optic communications lines on the rights of way that cross the plaintiffs’ properties and that such actions exceed the easements or other property rights held by us or our co-defendants, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power Company. The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, trespass and unjust enrichment and seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. We believe that we have complied with applicable laws and that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. The lawsuits relating to the easement rights in Georgia were resolved in 2006 in favor of Georgia Power Company and us. As of the date of this report, we, together with our co-defendants, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power Company, as applicable, have entered into agreements with plaintiffs in a substantial number of the actions pending against us to clarify the easement rights in Florida and Mississippi. These agreements have been approved by the Circuit Court of Gadsden County, Florida and the Circuit Courts of Harrison County and Jasper County, Mississippi (First Judicial Circuit), and dismissals of the related cases have occurred or are in progress. These agreements, and the payment of settlement amounts thereunder, did not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. As of December 31, 2009, pending proceedings or disputes that had not been settled or otherwise resolved affected approximately 40 route miles of our network. If some of these or similar future challenges are successful, or if we otherwise are unsuccessful in maintaining or renewing our rights to use

 

29


Table of Contents

our network easements, rights-of-way, franchises and licenses, we may be compelled to abandon significant portions of our network, which would require us to incur additional expenditures and to pay substantial monetary damages.

In August 2001, we filed suit in the Superior Court of Troup County, Georgia, against Southern Telecom, Inc., Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Gulf Power Company and related entities from which we have obtained by agreement use of rights-of-way for our fiber optic telecommunications networks. We seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants are legally required to use their best efforts to defend us against any claims that we do not have the right to use the rights-of-way granted to these entities and to defend, indemnify and hold us harmless against all such claims. We filed for summary judgment in December 2001, and the defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. The defendants also have filed a counterclaim requesting, among other relief, that we reimburse them for the cost of perfecting the applicable rights-of-way. In September 2004, the court issued an order denying our motion and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and staying the proceeding pending a final determination of the property owner proceedings that form the basis for our claims. In January 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied our appeal of this order on procedural grounds. The proceeding remains stayed pending developments in the various proceedings described above or previously resolved affecting the rights-of-way of Mississippi Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Georgia Power Company used by us. An adverse outcome on the counterclaim, or an adverse outcome against us in one or more of the rights-of-way lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

 

Item 4. (Removed and Reserved).

 

30


Table of Contents

Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to various litigation. Management does not believe that there are any legal proceedings pending against the Company, other than those described below, that, if determined in a manner adverse to the Company, likely could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Proceedings Affecting Rights-of-Way. To maintain its fiber optic network, the Company has obtained easements, rights-of-way, franchises and licenses from various third parties, including actual and potential competitors, local governments, private real property owners and others. The Company may not be able to continue to use or have access to all of its existing easements, rights-of-way, franchises and licenses or to renew or replace them after they expire. Since 2001, numerous third parties have initiated legal proceedings in a number of states challenging some of the Company’s licenses to use the rights-of-way of others, including its licenses to use the rights-of-way of Georgia Power Company (“Georgia Power”), Gulf Power Company (“Gulf Power”) and Mississippi Power Company (“Mississippi Power”). The plaintiffs’ lawsuits claim that the Company may not use some or all of the fiber optic communications lines on the rights of way that cross the plaintiffs’ properties and that such actions exceed the easements or other property rights held by the Company or its co-defendants, Georgia Power, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power. The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, trespass and unjust enrichment and seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. The Company believes

 

F-32


Table of Contents

that it has complied with applicable laws and that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. The lawsuits relating to the easement rights in Georgia were resolved in 2006 in favor of the Company and Georgia Power. To date, the Company, together with its co-defendants, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power, as applicable, has entered into agreements with plaintiffs in substantial number of the actions pending against the Company to clarify the easement rights in Florida and Mississippi. These agreements have been approved by the Circuit Court of Gadsden County, Florida and the Circuit Courts of Harrison County and Jasper County, Mississippi (First Judicial Circuit), and dismissals of the related cases have occurred or are in progress. These agreements, and the payment of settlement amounts thereunder, did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. As of December 31, 2009, pending proceedings or disputes, not settled or otherwise resolved, affected approximately 40 route miles of the Company’s network. If some of these or similar future challenges are successful, or if the Company otherwise is unsuccessful in maintaining or renewing its rights to use its network easements, rights-of-way, franchises and licenses, the Company may be compelled to abandon significant portions of its network, which would require it to incur additional expenditures and to pay substantial monetary damages.

In August 2001, the Company filed suit in the Superior Court of Troup County, Georgia, against Southern Telecom, Inc., Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power, Mississippi Power, Gulf Power and related entities from which the Company has obtained by agreement use of rights-of-way for its fiber optic telecommunications networks. The Company seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are legally required to use their best efforts to defend the Company against any claims that the Company does not have the right to use the rights-of-way granted to these entities and to defend, indemnify and hold the Company harmless against all such claims. The Company filed for summary judgment in December 2001, and the defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. The defendants also have filed a counterclaim requesting, among other relief, that the Company reimburse them for the cost of perfecting the applicable rights-of-way. In September 2004, the court issued an order denying the Company’s motion and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and staying the proceeding pending a final determination of the property owner proceedings that form the basis for the Company’s claims. In January 2005 the Georgia Court of Appeals denied the Company’s appeal of this order on procedural grounds. The proceeding remains stayed pending developments in the various proceedings described above or previously resolved affecting the rights-of-way of Mississippi Power, Gulf Power and Georgia Power used by the Company. An adverse outcome on the counterclaim, or an adverse outcome against the Company in one or more of the rights-of-way lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

 

11. Employee Benefit Plans

Employees of the Company participate in the Company’s 401(k) defined contribution plan. The Company offered matching of employee contributions at a rate of 50% on the first 4% of employee contributions for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. Total matching contributions made to the Company’s plan and charged to expense by the Company for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, were $779,000, $771,000 and $834,000, respectively. No discretionary contributions were made for any of the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 or 2007.

 

12. Related Party Transactions

The following is a summary of certain transactions during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 among the Company and its directors, executive officers, beneficial owners of more than 5% of its common stock, Series A preferred stock or Series B preferred stock, and certain entities with which the foregoing persons are affiliated or associated.

 

F-33


Table of Contents
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 22, 2010.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, the Company may become involved in legal proceedings occurring in the ordinary course of business. However, subject to the uncertainties inherent in any litigation, management believes there currently are no pending or threatened proceedings that are reasonably likely to result in a material adverse change in the Company’s consolidated financial condition or operations.

These excerpts taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 19, 2010.

Legal Proceedings

We are not involved in any pending legal proceedings as a defendant other than routine legal proceedings occurring in the ordinary course of business. At December 31, 2009, we were not involved in any legal proceedings, the outcome of which would be material to our financial condition or results of operations.

 

27


Table of Contents

  

 

 

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are involved as plaintiff or defendant in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. At December 31, 2009, we were not involved in any legal proceedings, the outcome of which would be material to our financial condition or results of operations.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-Q filed Mar 19, 2010.

Items 1. Legal Proceedings

We know of no material, existing or pending legal proceedings against our company, nor are we involved as a plaintiff in any material proceeding or pending litigation. There are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial shareholder, is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 19, 2010.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.


The Company is not the subject of any pending legal proceedings; and to the knowledge of management, no proceedings are presently contemplated against the Company by any federal, state or local governmental agency.



7



Further, to the knowledge of management, no director or executive officer is party to any action in which any has an interest adverse to the Company.


This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-Q filed Mar 19, 2010.

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We know of no material, active or pending legal proceedings against our company, nor are we involved as a plaintiff in any material proceeding or pending litigation. There are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial shareholder, is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 10-K filed Mar 19, 2010.
Item 3.   Legal Proceedings

We are not a party to any pending legal proceeding. We are not aware of any pending legal proceeding to which any of our officers, directors, or any beneficial holders of 5% or more of our voting securities are adverse to us or have a material interest adverse to us.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 20-F filed Feb 25, 2010.

Legal Proceedings

We are party to various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of our business, including matters relating to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), product performance, warranty, environmental, retail and wholesale credit, disputes with dealers and suppliers and service providers, patent and trademark matters, and employment matters. The most significant of these matters are described in “Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies” of our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 20-F filed Feb 12, 2010.

Legal Proceedings

This section discusses the principal environmental liabilities of ArcelorMittal and the principal legal actions to which ArcelorMittal is a party.

ArcelorMittal may be involved in litigation, arbitration or other legal proceedings. Provisions related to legal and arbitral proceedings are recorded in accordance with the principles described in Note 2 to ArcelorMittal’s consolidated financial statements.

Most of these claims involve highly complex issues, actual damages and other matters. Often these issues are subject to substantial uncertainties and, therefore, the probability of loss and an estimation of damages are difficult to ascertain. Consequently, for a large number of these claims, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the expected financial effect that will result from ultimate resolution of the proceeding. In those cases, we have disclosed information with respect to the nature of the contingency. We have not accrued a reserve for the potential outcome of these cases.

In the cases in which quantifiable fines and penalties have been assessed, we have indicated the amount of such fine or penalty or the amount of provision accrued that is the estimate of the probable loss.

In a limited number of ongoing cases, we are able to make a reasonable estimate of the expected loss or range of possible loss and have accrued a provision for such loss, but believe that publication of this information on a case-by-case basis would seriously prejudice the Company’s position in the ongoing legal proceedings or in any related settlement discussions. Accordingly, in these cases, we have disclosed information with respect to the nature of the contingency, but have not disclosed our estimate of the range of potential loss.

These assessments can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Our assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management. We believe that the aggregate provisions recorded for the above matters are adequate based upon currently available information. However, given the inherent uncertainties related to these cases and in estimating contingent liabilities, we could, in the future, incur judgments that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any particular period.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 20-F filed Dec 21, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

Orbital does not presently have any legal proceedings pending with significant effects on the Company’s financial position or profitability.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 8-K filed Dec 15, 2009.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. We are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that we believe will have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 8-K filed Dec 15, 2009.
Legal Proceedings.  Except as set forth in Schedule 4.9, there are no suits, actions, claims, proceedings or investigations (collectively, “Proceedings”) pending or, to the knowledge of HAI, threatened against, relating to or involving HAI, the Business, or any of HAI’s officers or directors (acting in their capacity as such) before any Governmental Authority nor, to the knowledge of HAI, is there any basis for any such Proceeding.  There is no judgment, decree, injunction, citation, settlement agreement, rule or order of any Governmental Authority outstanding against HAI.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 6-K filed Dec 14, 2009.
Legal Proceedings.  There are no Legal Proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of Chardan, threatened, against Chardan or any of its respective assets or properties, which could reasonably be expected to result in the issuance of an Order restraining, enjoining or otherwise prohibiting or making illegal the performance of any of Chardan’s obligations contemplated by this Agreement or any Transaction Document.
 
6.4.         
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 8-K filed Dec 14, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

 

The Company is involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings and various other matters. The Company is unable at this time to determine the financial impact of such proceedings and any recoveries or liabilities may have upon the Balance Sheet at this time. As more information becomes available in the future, the Company may record related amounts, which may be material, in future MORs.

 

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 8-K filed Dec 14, 2009.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

We know of no material, existing or pending legal proceedings against our company, nor are we involved as a plaintiff in any material proceeding or pending litigation. There are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial stockholder, is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 6-K filed Dec 11, 2009.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

For a description of other legal proceedings please see “Note— Disputes, Litigation and Legal Proceedings Pending and Other Information” of the Notes to the Unaudited Interim Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere herein in this Telecom Italia’s 2009 Third Quarter Financial Report 6-K.

 

 

51


Table of Contents

LOGO


Table of Contents

UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND DECEMBER 31, 2008 (Recast)—ASSETS

   F-3

UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND DECEMBER 31, 2008 (Recast)—EQUITY AND LIABILITIES

   F-4

UNAUDITED SEPARATE CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND 2008 (Recast) AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND 2008 (Recast)

   F-5

UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND 2008 (Recast) AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND 2008 (Recast)

   F-6

UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND 2008 (Recast)

   F-7

UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 AND 2008 (Recast)

   F-8

NOTE 1—FORM, CONTENT AND OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

   F-10

NOTE 2—ACCOUNTING POLICIES

   F-12

NOTE 3—DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS/NON—CURRENT ASSETS HELD FOR SALE

   F-21

NOTE 4—FINANCIAL LIABILITIES (CURRENT AND NON—CURRENT)

   F-23

NOTE 5— DISPUTES, LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AND OTHER INFORMATION

   F-26

NOTE 6—SEGMENT INFORMATION

   F-35

NOTE 7—EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

   F-41

 

 

F-2


Table of Contents
Unaudited Interim Consolidated Financial Statements   Unaudited Consolidated Statements Of Financial Position

 

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 20-F filed Dec 9, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

We have not been involved in any legal proceedings that may have, or have had a significant effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity, and we are not aware of any proceedings that are pending or threatened that may have a material effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity. From time to time, we may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, principally personal injury and property casualty claims associated with operating containerships. We expect that these claims would be covered by insurance, subject to customary deductibles. Claims, even if lacking merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources.

 

60


Table of Contents
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 6-K filed Dec 8, 2009.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS


There are no pending legal proceedings to which the Company or CLI or QMI or AHI is or is likely to be a party or of which any of its properties are, or to the best of knowledge of management of the Company or CLI or QMI or AHI are, likely to be subject.


This excerpt taken from the VLKAY DEF 14A filed Dec 4, 2009.

Legal Proceedings


To the best knowledge of the management of AngioGenex, no director, officer, affiliate of AngioGenex, owner of record or beneficially of more than 5% of any class of securities of AngioGenex, or security holder is a party adverse to AngioGenex or has a material interest adverse to AngioGenex in any material legal proceeding.

 


CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS


This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 8-K filed Dec 3, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

        We are involved in legal proceedings and other claims from time to time, including disputes with customers, commercial disputes with third parties with whom we do business and disputes with government entities. The disputes with customers include purported class actions regarding claims.

        The following is a summary of our material litigation.

        On January 27, 2002, 012 Golden Lines (which was subsequently merged into our company) filed a claim for NIS 53 million ($14 million) and for mandamus orders against Bezeq and Bezeq International claiming that Bezeq and Bezeq International interfered with its entry into the international telecommunications market. In April 2002, Bezeq and Bezeq International filed their statements of defense, together with a third-party notice against the Ministry of Communications. On January 2009, we filed a motion to amend the claim to increase the damages sought to NIS 77 million ($20 million).

        In 2003, Bezeq requested a “collection commission” from 012 Golden Lines in the amount of approximately NIS 6.0 million for completion of international calls made from card-operated public telephones in the years 1997-2002. On June 2004, Bezeq unilaterally deducted this amount from amounts accruing to 012 Golden Lines. On January 4, 2007, the Ministry of Communications determined that Bezeq is not entitled to the “collection commission” and that the deduction was unlawful. The Ministry of Communications ordered Bezeq to refund all of the amounts it deducted (including interest and linkage increments). Bezeq filed an administrative appeal with the Tel Aviv – Jaffa District Court against the Ministry of Communications’ determination, which was dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Bezeq appealed to the Supreme Court and contemporaneously filed an administrative petition. Bezeq’s appeal was denied in March 2009. Following the Supreme Court ruling, Bezeq approached us to seek a settlement and we are currently in negotiations with Bezeq.

66



        On January 2, 2005, a claim was submitted against 012 Golden Lines (which was subsequently merged into our company) and three other companies regarding the alleged infringement of Israeli Patent No. 76993 of November 10, 1985, or the Patent, claiming unjust enrichment, breach of statutory duties and conversion, or the 2005 Claim. The plaintiffs’ demands include payment of amounts of income generated from exploitation of the Patent, payment of reasonable royalties for exploitation of the Patent, punitive damages, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, and payment of linkage differentials and interest from the date of creation of the debt until the date of actual payment. The 2005 Claim states that the monetary amount cannot be determined at this stage and that it has been assessed for the purpose of court fees only at NIS 10 million. A statement of defense was filed on July 17, 2005 and a third party notice against the providers of the telecommunications systems allegedly infringing the patent, or the Third Party Defendants, seeking indemnification and compensation for any liability that may be imposed in the context of the 2005 Claim, or the Third Party Proceedings. The plaintiffs have also initiated similar proceedings against other telecommunication companies in other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. Some telecommunication companies, including one of the initial defendants named in the 2005 Claim, have settled with the plaintiffs, whereas other telecommunication companies have refused to settle and are continuing to litigate. On May 23, 2008, the England & Wales High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, declared that the plaintiffs’ corresponding English patent is invalid on the grounds of obviousness and excluded matter. On May 20 2009, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court decision on the grounds of obviousness. The District Court scheduled a pre-trial hearing for July 12 2009, and the parties have agreed that all preliminary proceedings (e.g. discovery requests and interrogatories) will be completed no later than the pre-trial date. One of the Third Party Defendants is Nortel Networks Israel (Sales and Marketing) Ltd., or Nortel Israel. In a separate proceeding, on January 19, 2009, the District Court of Tel Aviv – Jaffa issued an ex parte order according to which all legal proceedings to which Nortel Israel is a party, including the Third Party Proceedings, shall be stayed. Such stay of proceeding was extended several times and is currently in force until August 30, 2009, and a hearing in this matter is scheduled for such date. The District Court also appointed two trustees, for the purpose of reaching an arrangement among the creditors. On February 25, 2009, we and another defendant in the 2005 Claim filed a motion with the District Court of Tel Aviv – Jaffa requesting that it allow us and the other applicant to continue the Third Party Proceedings against Nortel Israel. On March 10, 2009, Nortel Israel’s trustees submitted their response and on March 19, 2009, we submitted our reply. On March 22, 2009, the Court ordered the receiver in the matter to submit its position before any decision is rendered by the Court, which submission is due on June 17, 2009. To the best of our knowledge, such response wasn’t filed yet. We have included a provision for the 2005 Claim in our consolidated financial statements which, according to our management’s estimation, is sufficient to cover any possible losses.

        In February 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with various District Courts in Israel against several international telephony companies including, our company, with respect to prepaid calling card services. The plaintiffs allege that: (i) the defendants unlawfully charged consumers in excess of the tariffs published by them, (ii) the prepaid calling cards provide an average of 50% of the units of time indicated to the purchasers of the cards, (iii) the defendants deduct from the prepaid calling card the time spent when a user unsuccessfully attempts to make a call utilizing the card, (iv) the defendants calculate and collect payment not by units of round minutes indicated, (v) the defendants provide misleading information about the number of “units” on the card, and (vi) the defendants formed a cartel that arranged and raised the prices of calling cards. We believe that we have good defenses against certification of the suit as a class action. In the event the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed against us will be NIS 226.4 million ($59.5 million). At this preliminary stage we are unable to estimate the potential liability or costs, if any, that we may incur in connection with this matter.

        In April 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with various District Courts in Israel against Netvision 013 Barak and us with respect to our provision of prepaid calling card services. The action alleges that the defendants improperly calculated the length of the international calls in whole-minutes units rather than in one-second units. The lawsuit does not specify an allocation of the claim amount between the defendants. We believe that we have good defenses against certification of the suit as a class action. In the event the suit is certified as a class action, the estimated amount claimed from both defendants will be NIS 200 million ($52.6 million). At this preliminary stage we are unable to estimate the potential liability or costs, if any, that we may incur in connection with this matter.

        In November 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed against us in the Tel Aviv – Jaffa District Court. The plaintiffs allege that we unlawfully raised the monthly tariffs of our Internet services. The total amount of the claim is NIS 81.5 million ($21.4 million). At this preliminary stage we are unable to estimate the potential liability or costs, if any, that we may incur in connection with this matter.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY DEF 14A filed Dec 2, 2009.
Legal Proceedings
 
There are no material pending legal proceedings to which any Trustee or affiliated person is a party adverse to the funds or any of their affiliated persons or has a material interest adverse to the funds or any of its affiliated persons. In addition, there have been no legal proceedings that are material to an evaluation of the ability or integrity of any Trustee or executive officer of the funds within the past five years.
 
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY DEF 14A filed Dec 2, 2009.
Legal Proceedings
 
There are no material pending legal proceedings to which any Trustee or affiliated person is a party adverse to the funds or any of their affiliated persons or has a material interest adverse to the funds or any of its affiliated persons. In addition, there have been no legal proceedings that are material to an evaluation of the ability or integrity of any Trustee or executive officer of the funds within the past five years.
 
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 8-K filed Nov 25, 2009.
Legal Proceedings. There is no order or proceeding pending or Threatened against Buyer that individually or when aggregated with one or more other actions or proceedings, has or might reasonably be expected to have a materially adverse effect on Buyer’s ability to perform this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby.
 
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY DEFA14A filed Nov 25, 2009.
Legal Proceedings. There is no order or proceeding pending or Threatened against Buyer that individually or when aggregated with one or more other actions or proceedings, has or might reasonably be expected to have a materially adverse effect on Buyer’s ability to perform this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby.
 
This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 20-F filed Nov 24, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

                We are not involved in any proceedings in which any of our directors, members of our senior management or any of our affiliates is either a party adverse to us or to our subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to us or to our subsidiaries. We are also not involved in any material legal proceedings, except as described below.

                In July 2003, a former Liraz shareholder filed an application with the Tel Aviv, Jaffa District Court to approve a claim filed by him against us, as a class action. The claim relates to the acquisition of Liraz shares, which we completed in March 2003. The shareholder alleges that the share price we paid to Liraz’s shareholders in the tender offer and in a subsequent mandatory purchase was lower than the fair price of Liraz shares. The maximum amount of the claim is approximately $8.7 million in the aggregate. Under Israeli law, the court’s approval is required for the plaintiff to represent all of the shareholders of Liraz who sold their shareholdings to us pursuant to the tender offer and the mandatory acquisition. The plaintiff has applied for such approval in the lawsuit. Based on our analysis of the statement of claim, including an evaluation of the fair value of the Liraz shares, and the price paid for Liraz in a previous transaction immediately prior to the tender offer, we believe that the allegations against us in this proceeding are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the claim and contest the allegations made therein.

                In January 2008, we entered into an agreement for the purchase of the entire outstanding share capital of TIS. We are currently in a dispute with TIS regarding the earn-out calculation for 2008, and therefore, we notified TIS’ selling shareholders that we are not going to pay them the down payment for the year 2008, which was due in February 2009. Immediately following such notice, the selling shareholders notified us of their intent to submit a claim against us for such payment. As of the date of this annual report, a claim has not yet been filed with the court. Our exposure in that regard might be up to $5 million. We believe we can defend our position.

84



This excerpt taken from the VLKAY DEF 14A filed Nov 24, 2009.

Legal Proceedings

Except as set forth in the Statement of Claim, Paramount is not involved in any material legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to Paramount’s business.

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 8-K filed Nov 17, 2009.
ITEM 3: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Several lawsuits were filed against us in February 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from June 26, 2003, through and including February 4, 2005, referred to as the class period. Dr. Marvin S. Hausman, M.D., a former director and a former Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Gosse B. Bruinsma, M.D., also a former director and a former Chief Executive Officer, were also named as defendants in the lawsuits. These actions were consolidated into a single class action lawsuit in January 2006. On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. We filed our answer to that complaint on May 26, 2006. Our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 26, 2006 and was submitted to the court for a decision in September 2006. On March 31, 2009 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the proceedings. On April 24, 2009, an appeal was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by the class action plaintiffs. Our response to such appeal was filed on October 23, 2009. We do not anticipate that this claim, if successful, would burden the Company with any additional liability above and beyond the insurance coverage provided under the insurance policy that we currently maintain.
 
 
Other than as described above, we know of no material, active or pending legal proceedings against us, nor are we involved as a plaintiff in any material proceedings or pending litigation. There are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial stockholders are an adverse party or have a material interest adverse to us.
 
 

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

 

The following section describes developments in legal proceedings which may have, or have had, during the six months ended 30 September 2009, a significant effect on the financial position or profitability of the Company and its subsidiaries. This section should be read in conjunction with the information contained under “Legal proceedings” on pages 114 to 115 of the Group’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 March 2009.

 

This excerpt taken from the VLKAY 6-K filed Nov 10, 2009.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings


 

General


We are party to various legal proceedings, including actions that are or purport to be class actions, resulting from ordinary business activities relating to our current and/or former operations. These actions generally assert violations of laws and/or unfair treatment of consumers. Due to the uncertainties in litigation and other factors, we cannot be certain that we will ultimately prevail in each instance. We believe that our defenses to these actions have merit and any adverse decision should not materially affect our consolidated financial condition. However, losses may be material to our results of operations for any particular future period depending on our income level for that period. Where appropriate, insurance carriers have been notified.
 

Consumer Litigation


During the past several years, the press has widely reported certain industry related concerns, including rising delinquencies, the tightening of credit and more recently, increasing litigation. Some of the litigation instituted against lenders is being brought in the form of purported class actions by individuals or by state or federal regulators or state attorneys general. Like other companies in this industry, we are involved in litigation regarding our practices. The cases generally allege inadequate disclosure or misrepresentation during the loan origination process. In some suits, other parties are also named as defendants. Unspecified compensatory and punitive damages are sought. The judicial climate in many states is such that the outcome of these cases is unpredictable. Although we believe we have substantive legal defenses to these claims and are prepared to defend each case vigorously, a number of such cases have been settled or otherwise resolved for amounts that in the aggregate are not material to our operations.
 

Loan Discrimination Litigation


Since July of 2007, HSBC Finance Corporation and/or one or more of its subsidiaries has been named as a defendant in five class actions filed in the federal courts in the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of California and the District of Massachusetts:
Zamudio v. HSBC North America Holdings and HSBC Finance Corporation d/b/a Beneficial, (N.D. Ill. 07CV5413), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al. including HSBC Finance Corporation (C.D. Ca., No. SACV07-0794AG), Toruno v. HSBC Finance Corporation and Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC (C.D. Ca., No. CV07-05998JSL), Suyapa Allen v. Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC, HSBC Finance Corporation, et al.  (D. Mass., C.A. 07-11669) and Doiron, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., et al., (E.D. Ca., 2:08-CV-00605- FCD). Each suit alleges that the named entities racially discriminated against their customers by using loan pricing policies and procedures that have resulted in a disparate impact against minority customers. Violations of various federal statutes, including the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, are claimed. The Zamudio case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on July 7, 2008 and may not be reinitiated. In the NAACP case, the Court granted HSBC Finance Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on January 9, 2009. Settlement proposals are being discussed that, if successful, will not result in a material loss. If trial proceeds, at this time we are unable to quantify the potential impact from the remaining actions, if any.
 

City of Cleveland Litigation


On January 10, 2008, a suit captioned,
City of Cleveland v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company, et al. was filed in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court against numerous financial services entities. HSBC Finance Corporation was a defendant. The City of Cleveland ("City") sought damages it allegedly incurred as a result of defendants' creation of a public nuisance in the City through their respective involvement as lenders and/or securitizers of sub-prime mortgages on properties located in Cleveland. On January 16, 2008, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On August 22, 2008, the City filed a new complaint, City of Cleveland v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA et al, in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County Ohio, in which it made virtually identical allegations as in the Federal Court complaint, alleges violations of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act and named additional defendants. The two courts approved the parties' agreements regarding the defendants in these two actions. HSBC Finance Corporation was dismissed with prejudice from the Federal Court action. Subsidiaries of HSBC Finance Corporation, namely Household Realty Corporation and HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. were defendants in the State Court action, which has been subsequently dismissed by the City. This matter will not be reported in future filings.
 

Card Services Litigation


Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York;
Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)): National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. The parties are engaged in discovery and motion practice. At this time, we are unable to quantify the potential impact from this action, if any.
 

Securities Litigation


In August 2002, we restated previously reported consolidated financial statements related to certain MasterCard and Visa co-branding and affinity credit card relationships and a third party marketing agreement, which were entered into between 1992 and 1999. All were part of our Card Services operations. As a result of the restatement and other corporate events, including, e.g., the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household International and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit,
Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al., No. 02 C 5893 (N.D. Ill., filed August 19, 2002).
 
The complaint, as narrowed by Court rulings, asserted claims under § 10 and § 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11, 2002. The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material facts relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. The plaintiffs claim that these statements were made in conjunction with the purchase or sale of securities, that they justifiably relied on one or more of those statements, that the false statement(s) caused the plaintiffs' damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable for those damages.
 
A jury trial began on March 30, 2009 and closing arguments concluded on April 30, 2009. The jury deliberated over the course of four days before rendering a verdict on May 7 partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to Household International and three former officers. The jury found 17 of 40 alleged misstatements actionable and that the first actionable statement occurred on March 23, 2001. This effectively excludes claims for purchases made prior to that date. We filed a motion requesting that the Court set aside the jury's verdict and enter a verdict in favor of all defendants on all claims and a motion for a new trial. Pleadings supporting the motions were filed with the Court by July 20, 2009.
 
Concurrent with the briefing on the motion to set aside the jury verdict, a second phase of the case will proceed to determine the actual damages, if any, due to the plaintiff class. Although the jury determined that the loss per common share attributable to the alleged misstatements varied by day and ranged from -$4.60 (no loss) to $23.94, how this stage of the case will proceed has not been determined by the Court. Matters to be determined include, but are not limited to, whether there will be discovery to determine if shareholders actually relied upon statements found to be misleading, the process for determining which shareholders purchased securities on or after March 23, 2001 and sold during the relevant period (the sale window potentially extending up to 90 days after October 11, 2002), as well as other procedural matters and eligibility criteria. The plaintiffs and defendants each filed proposals on how to conduct this damages phase. Given the complexity associated with this phase of the case, it is impossible at this time to determine whether any damages will eventually be awarded, or the amount of any such award.
 
There are also several motions pending that would dispose of the case prior to a determination of actual damages, including defendants' motion for summary judgment as filed in May 2008 and motions to direct a verdict made at the close of both the plaintiffs' and defendants' cases. When any final judgment is entered by the District Court at the conclusion of the damages phase of the case, the parties have 30 days in which to appeal the verdict to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
Despite the verdict at the District Court level, we continue to believe, after consultation with counsel, that neither Household nor its former officers engaged in any wrongdoing and that we will either prevail on our outstanding motions or that the Seventh Circuit will reverse the trial Court verdict upon appeal.
 

RELATED TOPICS for VLKAY:

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