●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byNETHED ( 258016 ) writes:
You know, I think the Lawyers are on our side FOR ONCE. They are milking SCO dry. Anyway I could contact them so they would have to bill SCO? I know, lets SLASHDOT the Lawyer office, and make sure that they bill SCO.
Better be quiet, FBI might come knocking (*AGAIN*)
byyog ( 19073 ) writes:
I know you're kidding but it's still a sad commentary on the way the legal profession has undermined the economy.
Those lawyers have done nothing for SCO and yet they have greatly enriched themselves from shareholders' money. Granted some of that money came from outfits with questionable morals themselves, like The Canopy Group, but that's also money that could have been invested in hiring software people to help improve their products and their competitive position in the market. SCO was once a reputable
byrkent ( 73434 ) writes:
I know you're kidding but it's still a sad commentary on the way the legal profession has undermined the economy. Those lawyers have done nothing for SCO and yet they have greatly enriched themselves from shareholders' money.
And who do you blame for this? The first response to jump to mind should be "whatever jackass decided to pay the lawyers so much for such a hopeless lawsuit". An old saw in the legal profession is that the reason lawyers are such assholes, is that clients are such assholes (see my
byLord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) writes:
"2) If you are a shareholder of SCO, you could bring an action against the board of directors, personally as individuals and in their role as directors, and probably McBride and other "wayward" executives. The basis for this would be that the management of SCO is doing things that are actually against its shareholders' best interests (as confirmed by the miserable performance of SCO stock), and thus violating securities regulations."
So let me get this straight, all you would need to do to fit this category
byrkent ( 73434 ) writes:
So let me get this straight, all you would need to do to fit this category is buy a single share of SCO stock? Hmmm......lets see.....
Technically yes, but the action you would seek would be called a "shareholder derivative" suit (google for more info), which is kind of a class action, and you'd be representing the interests of all shareholders (assuming your complaint is valid, and the actions of management really are hurting the stock value). So the concern about only recovering $3.50 or whatever, brought up by another poster in this thread, is probably not such a big deal. I don't know exactly how the calculus goes, but I think the damages would be the total amount knocked off the stock price for ALL shareholders, and the firm would take a cut of that. Consult your lawyer though.
It is true that derivative actions are usually pursued by the biggest shareholders, and I can imagine a judge tossing out your suit on the basis that you're not a "genuine" investor, but only bought a share in order to have standing to sue.
A recent example of a shareholder derivative action, by the way, was when a major investor sued Sinclair Broadcasting for planning to run that anti-Kerry documentary, on the premise that it cost them a lot of advertising. The next day Sinclair responded that they weren't showing the documentary, but only a "news feature" based on it, so draw your own conclusion about whether the suit worked.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydruxton ( 166270 ) writes:
"shareholder derivative" suit (google for more info), which is kind of a class action
Shareholders already had a class action against Nortel and some of its current and former executives [www.cbc.ca], and this morning I heard on CBC radio that one is now being brought against members of the board (it doesn't seem to have made the web site yet).
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...