View Poll Results: Did you buy shares ?

Voters
1110. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I'm acting now !

    694 62.52%
  • No

    416 37.48%
  1. Corbu's Avatar
    08-24-16 05:03 PM
  2. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    Guys, while *some* stock related OT is OK please remember there is also another "Diversification investment" thread in this section ...
    Thanks !

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    08-24-16 05:59 PM
  3. dusdal's Avatar
    BRKs Buffet likes to invest in household brand names, things you expect to be around for a very long time. APPL is a consumer product-driven company involved with technology, where brand perception drives most of their margins. The dot-com internet-centered companies like social media, online media, or online advertising-driven tech are what Buffet avoids. You can find a bunch of Buffet interviews on YouTube where he talks about this, to help you get a better idea of his investing strats.
    I would suggest that the earlier response was probably bang on.

    That is, this investment was probably made by one of his two guys that he brought on board a while back.

    This is just to say that Berkshire Hathaway doesn't strictly = Warren Buffett as it has in the past.

    Edit: found them http://www.canadianbusiness.com/inve...estment-gurus/


    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    morganplus8, Corbu, bbjdog and 3 others like this.
    08-24-16 07:15 PM
  4. Corbu's Avatar
    Same story getting some play:
    iTWire - Blackberry doing well in Australia
    Mr BBRY, masterful, bbjdog and 5 others like this.
    08-24-16 07:57 PM
  5. Corbu's Avatar
    08-25-16 08:58 AM
  6. sidhuk's Avatar
    I thought it was already happening. http://gizmodo.com/whatsapp-betrays-...h-f-1785733967
    Not sure about blackberry's BBM policies. People providing all kind of data to facebook already. That is very valuable data.

    Posted Via blackberry passport.
    08-25-16 10:03 AM
  7. eg24hrs's Avatar
    I would suggest that the earlier response was probably bang on.

    That is, this investment was probably made by one of his two guys that he brought on board a while back.

    This is just to say that Berkshire Hathaway doesn't strictly = Warren Buffett as it has in the past.

    Edit: found them Meet Ted Weschler and Todd Combs, Warren Buffett's newest managers


    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    Thanks for the article. I am familiar with the matter, but the point I was emphasizing is that Berkshire Hathaway follows the investment philosophies of Warren Buffett (who follows Benjamin Graham). The article you provided the link for also makes a note of this. Using Buffett's sound logic, it becomes clear why the company has invested a large stake in APPL.
    08-25-16 11:56 AM
  8. CDM76's Avatar
    I thought it was already happening. http://gizmodo.com/whatsapp-betrays-...h-f-1785733967
    Not sure about blackberry's BBM policies. People providing all kind of data to facebook already. That is very valuable data.

    Posted Via blackberry passport.
    People put so much on Facebook already that most don't care of sharing their information with Facebook...... As long as it isn't shared with the government. Unfortunately, once it's shared the OTHER company's privacy policy kicks in. And in most cases Facebook shares your information with authorities upon request. Often with warrant, but sometimes without.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App on DTek50
    sidhuk and rarsen like this.
    08-25-16 12:06 PM
  9. morganplus8's Avatar
    I'm completely surprised that the stock isn't down far more on this news. In the past, we would have tanked on something like this.

    "The court nonetheless said the plaintiffs could try to persuade Griesa to let them amend their complaint in light of new legal developments and evidence that the plaintiffs said would support their claims.

    The appeals court said if Griesa refuses to let the plaintiffs amend their complaint, he should explain his reasons, which he had not done before
    ."

    The court of appeals are stating they think the plaintiffs have a case and would support it if they can re-define the complaint in itself. They go so far as to further state that the lower court should allow the re-statement of the claim or explain to the appeal court the reasoning for them not allowing the complaint to be restated. This is not good news for BlackBerry as the potential payout could be huge and the court of appeals is on the side of the plaintiff.

    Go figure, we would have dropped a buck on this news in the past, here, we are building for another rally attempt. Crazy.
    rarsen, Corbu, sidhuk and 5 others like this.
    08-25-16 02:04 PM
  10. Corbu's Avatar
    08-25-16 02:31 PM
  11. fanBBRY's Avatar
    This is just unbelievable!!
    morganplus8, rarsen and sidhuk like this.
    08-25-16 03:14 PM
  12. _dimi_'s Avatar
    I'm completely surprised that the stock isn't down far more on this news. In the past, we would have tanked on something like this.

    "The court nonetheless said the plaintiffs could try to persuade Griesa to let them amend their complaint in light of new legal developments and evidence that the plaintiffs said would support their claims.

    The appeals court said if Griesa refuses to let the plaintiffs amend their complaint, he should explain his reasons, which he had not done before
    ."

    The court of appeals are stating they think the plaintiffs have a case and would support it if they can re-define the complaint in itself. They go so far as to further state that the lower court should allow the re-statement of the claim or explain to the appeal court the reasoning for them not allowing the complaint to be restated. This is not good news for BlackBerry as the potential payout could be huge and the court of appeals is on the side of the plaintiff.

    Go figure, we would have dropped a buck on this news in the past, here, we are building for another rally attempt. Crazy.
    I wonder what the 'new' evidence is that could support the plaintiffs' side.. seems to be the only reason why the court of appeals has suggested they go back and try to restate the complaint?

    Posted via CB10
    morganplus8, rarsen and sidhuk like this.
    08-25-16 03:28 PM
  13. slipstream89's Avatar
    OT: SPHS so take this with a grain of salt as it is from stocktwits....dont usually listen to what they say because they all pre-madonnas and are morons usually. But this guy appears truthful and transparent but still take with a grain of salt. People have been posting email responses this was one there was another one that was more detailed response, IL try to look for it later...what yall think

    EDIT: Hopefully its fixed, found the other one too

    PS. I'm posting with my new PRIV....although im happy that I have apps now...i friggin miss my PP I was so much more efficient and productive on it



    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    Attached Thumbnails The BBRY Café.  [Formerly: I support BBRY and I buy shares]-sphs.png   The BBRY Café.  [Formerly: I support BBRY and I buy shares]-capture.png  
    Last edited by slipstream89; 08-25-16 at 04:37 PM.
    08-25-16 03:52 PM
  14. Corbu's Avatar
    15-3991 Cox v. BlackBerry Limited

    […]

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.).

    ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

    Plaintiffs Todd Cox and Mary Dinzik appeal from the March 17, 2015 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.), granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”), and the November 13, 2015 order of the same court denying reconsideration and denying leave to amend. Plaintiffs sued defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, see 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, see 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, alleging that defendants made material misstatements and omitted material information related to the release of the BlackBerry Z10 smartphone. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

    “We review de novo the district court’s judgment granting [d]efendants’ motion to dismiss.” Stratte-McClure v. Morgan Stanley, 776 F.3d 94, 99-100 (2d Cir. 2015). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “To state a claim under Rule 10b-5 for misrepresentations, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant (1) made misstatements or omissions of material fact, (2) with scienter, (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, (4) upon which the plaintiff relied, and (5) that the plaintiff’s reliance was the proximate cause of its injury.” ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 105 (2d Cir. 2007).

    “Scienter” in this context means “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 319 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) provides that, to survive dismissal, the allegations in the complaint must give rise to a “strong inference of scienter.” Id. at 323. An inference of scienter is strong “only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.” Id. at 324. Thus, in analyzing scienter, a court looks not just to inferences favoring the plaintiff, but must also take into account “plausible, nonculpable explanations for the defendant’s conduct.” Id. Although an inference of scienter may arise from “strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness,” ATSI Commc’ns, 493 F.3d at 99, the recklessness must represent “an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care to the extent that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it,” Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81, 90 (2d Cir. 2000) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

    The district court correctly held that the allegations in the Complaint, even when considered holistically, fail to give rise to a strong inference of scienter. The fact that defendants Heins and Bidulka occupied high-ranking positions at BlackBerry and had an incentive for the company to succeed is insufficient to establish scienter. See S. Cherry St., LLC v. Hennessee Grp. LLC, 573 F.3d 98, 109 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[I]t is not sufficient to allege goals that are possessed by virtually all corporate insiders, such as the desire to . . . sustain the appearance of corporate profitability. . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And although the Complaint alleges that Heins and Bidulka monitored the sales and returns of the BlackBerry Z10, the Complaint fails to allege any particularized facts suggesting that defendants actually possessed information contradicting their public statements about the release of the Z10. See Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300, 309 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Where plaintiffs contend defendants had access to contrary facts, they must specifically identify reports or statements containing this information.”). In short, plaintiffs’ theory of scienter in the Complaint is that because the release of the Z10 ultimately turned out to be a failure, defendants must have known that it would be a failure and lied about this fact to investors. Such “fraud by hindsight” theories are not permitted under the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standards. Id. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Complaint.

    Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred in denying them leave to amend the Complaint. A court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Although leave to amend should be liberally granted, it may properly be denied for “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “We review a district court’s denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, unless the denial was based on an interpretation of law, such as futility, in which case we review the legal conclusion de novo.” Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2012).

    Although we agree with the district court that the Complaint failed to state a plausible claim to relief, the present record is insufficient for us to determine whether the district court properly denied plaintiffs leave to amend. Two significant developments occurred after the district court dismissed the Complaint. First, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015), which held that a statement of opinion can be misleading if the statement “omits material facts about the issuer’s inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of opinion . . . and . . . those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself.” Id. at 1329. This holding altered the standard previously applied by this Circuit that “when a plaintiff asserts a claim based upon a belief or opinion alleged to have been communicated by a defendant, liability lies only to the extent the statement was both objectively false and disbelieved by the defendant at the time it was expressed.” Tongue v. Sanofi, 816 F.3d 199, 209 (2d Cir. 2016) (alterations omitted) (quoting Fait v. Regions Fin. Corp., 655 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2011)).

    Second, plaintiffs discovered evidence that they contend corroborated an April 2013 report by the research and investment firm Detwiler Fenton. The report stated that customer returns of the Z10 were outpacing sales. Shortly after the report was issued, BlackBerry released a statement that the report was “absolutely without basis,” more specifically representing that 4 “the data we have collected from our retail and carrier partners demonstrates that customers are satisfied with their devices,” and that “[r]eturn rate statistics show that we are at or below our forecasts and right in line with the industry.” App’x at 68-69. Additionally, in the statement, BlackBerry’s Chief Legal Officer asserted that the report was “materially false and misleading,” and he “call[ed] upon the appropriate authorities in Canada and the United States to conduct an immediate investigation.” App’x at 69. Plaintiffs contend that, after the district court dismissed the Complaint, they discovered through review of the criminal complaint and accompanying affidavit in United States v. Dunham, No. 15-7051 (D. Mass. filed Feb. 24, 2015), that a former executive at a wireless retailer “obtained very specific, confidential financial data and information concerning sales and returns of [the Z10] and provided it to [Detwiler Fenton].” App’x at 577. Plaintiffs allege that this new evidence shows that the Detwiler Fenton report was accurate and that this, in turn, shows that “[d]efendants’ opinion statements [that the Detwiler Fenton report was false] had no reasonable basis.” App’x at 576. Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to include these additional allegations.

    The district court denied plaintiffs’ request to amend without explanation, stating only that plaintiffs had made the request for the first time in a reply brief in support of their motion for reconsideration and that “[h]aving considered the parties’ arguments,” the court “[d]enies the motion for reconsideration and the request for leave to amend.” Special App’x at 29. Thus, it is unclear from the district court’s order whether the district court denied leave to amend because it believed that amendment was futile, or because amendment was not warranted due to plaintiffs’ undue delay, undue prejudice to defendants, or some other reason. See Ruotolo, 514 F.3d at 191. As noted, whether the district court’s decision was based on an interpretation of law, such as futility, or some other consideration affects whether we apply a de novo or abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See Panther Partners, 681 F.3d at 119. Because the district court did not explain its basis for denying leave to amend, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the district court to reconsider whether plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend. In considering that question, the district court may wish to order further briefing from the parties. If the district court determines that leave to amend should be denied, it should explain the basis for its decision. We express no view at this time as to whether leave to amend should be granted.

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing the Complaint is AFFIRMED. The order of the district court denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and leave to amend is VACATED insofar as it denied leave to amend, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
    08-25-16 03:55 PM
  15. Corbu's Avatar
    ot: so take this with a grain of salt as it is from stocktwits....dont usually listen to what they say because they all pre-madonnas and are morons usually. But this guy appears truthful and transparent but still take with a grain of salt. People have been posting email responses this was one there was another one that was more detailed response, IL try to look for it later...what yall think

    Attachment 407156
    Unreadable, I am afraid...
    morganplus8, bbjdog and sidhuk like this.
    08-25-16 03:57 PM
  16. bbjdog's Avatar
    which he had not done before."
    Morgan, reading this paragraph and the part I quoted above, makes me think they tried to submit at trial or after and the trial Judge refused, but didn't give reason as to why. I could be wrong as I'm not a lawyer and I am sure someone here is more qualified in this matter. I see it as the Appeals court only found that error in the trial Judge transcripts/records.

    Cheers mate!

    Thanks Corbu!

    For some reason your post about Cox vs Blackberry was not visible. Thanks mate and cheers!
    Last edited by bbjdog; 08-25-16 at 05:47 PM.
    Corbu, morganplus8, rarsen and 1 others like this.
    08-25-16 05:00 PM
  17. masterful's Avatar
    OT: SPHS so take this with a grain of salt as it is from stocktwits....dont usually listen to what they say because they all pre-madonnas and are morons usually. But this guy appears truthful and transparent but still take with a grain of salt. People have been posting email responses this was one there was another one that was more detailed response, IL try to look for it later...what yall think

    EDIT: Hopefully its fixed, found the other one too

    PS. I'm posting with my new PRIV....although im happy that I have apps now...i friggin miss my PP I was so much more efficient and productive on it



    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    I'm lost of what you are referring

    Edit: I see it now. Thanks

    Posted via my BlackBerry PRIV
    Last edited by masterful; 08-25-16 at 07:28 PM.
    08-25-16 06:12 PM
  18. bspence87's Avatar
    I'm lost of what you are referring

    Posted via my BlackBerry PRIV
    The email (from Michael Moore, PR/IR) answers some questions the sender had asked regarding the intentions of the company with the offering, and Oppenheimer.

    In summary, the money raised is to be used to find the p2b PC trials, not the BPH p3, as they still wouldn't have enough money to fund the BPH trials.
    In regards to Oppenheimer, the two companies are still engaged, and the offering is mutually exclusive to the engagement. The offering strengthens the balance sheet, allowing for better negotiations on Oppenheimer/Sophiris' part.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    morganplus8, Corbu, rarsen and 4 others like this.
    08-25-16 07:09 PM
  19. bspence87's Avatar
    OT: SPHS.

    Seems to me that the clock was ticking, and potential buyers / partners were telling Sophiris that they can afford to wait more than Sophiris could (with only enough cash to last twelve months). Woods went ahead with the trials, so as not to be at the mercy of big pharma and to not waste anymore valuable time.

    Woods is smart, and more vested in the company's success than anyone else. This is the best move he could make, and I think we'll see the fruits soon enough. If 2b is successful, we'll see a massive bidding war. The best option beside SPHS right now is Xtandi, which only prolongs life by a few months. Everyone needs an answer to Pfizer getting it.

    After I let my emotions settle, I'm thankful for this buying opportunity.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    Corbu, bbjdog, morganplus8 and 5 others like this.
    08-25-16 07:17 PM
  20. morganplus8's Avatar
    Morgan, reading this paragraph and the part I quoted above, makes me think they tried to submit at trial or after and the trial Judge refused, but didn't give reason as to why. I could be wrong as I'm not a lawyer and I am sure someone here is more qualified in this matter. I see it as the Appeals court only found that error in the trial Judge transcripts/records.

    Cheers mate!

    Thanks Corbu!

    For some reason your post about Cox vs Blackberry was not visible. Thanks mate and cheers!
    First off, thanks to Corbu for posting the details of the dismissal of the appeal from the Plaintiffs vs. BlackBerry. I did want to hear from the appeals judge as to why he felt the lower court needed to explain his (Griesa) reasoning for a possible denial of a revised complaint based upon the new evidence brought forth via "other cases recently settled", since the Griesa decision.

    The appeals judge believes that two recent judgments from other cases are noteworthy enough to cause Griesa to change his stance on his dismissal of the Plaintiff vs. BlackBerry lower court ruling. The appeals judge thinks that the argument for the two other cases is material enough to cause Griesa to not only allow an amendment but to also force Griesa to be accountable for his decision and have to explain why he disallowed an amendment to the original claim .... to the point that a full explanation is required. The appeals judge is implying that if Griesa won't explain why he feels there is no merit in the new evidence from subsequent other trials, the appeals judge might over-turn his own judgement for BlackBerry on the same evidence.

    The result of his language is that Griesa had better have a good explanation why he won't allow this case to move forward based upon the procedures of other recent cases similar to this one, or, he will take the law into his own hands and reverse his own dismissal in appeal. There is no "new" evidence as we first thought, there are two procedures that make the existing evidence more important for the plaintiff though and this new approach to the existing/known data would be important to the appeals judge today. So we will have to see what Griesa has to say in appeal of the first dismissal by himself, given the new approach to two other similar cases and their rulings. This will take years to sort out and plenty of legal arguments to determine if there is a case based upon the new approaches of others. The appeals judge sure feels there is a case against BlackBerry and hints that the lower court had better review the evidence and proceed with the revision of the old complaint and then allow it to proceed from there ... or else!
    Corbu, bbjdog, sidhuk and 2 others like this.
    08-25-16 07:49 PM
  21. Corbu's Avatar
    For those that are interested, this appears to be the PEARLSTEIN v. BLACKBERRY LTD March 17, 2015 judgment:
    PEARLSTEIN v. BLACKBERRY LTD. by THOMAS P. GRIESA, District Judge | Leagle.com

    Plaintiffs Todd Cox and Mary Dinzik appeal from the March 17, 2015 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.), granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”), and the November 13, 2015 order of the same court denying reconsideration and denying leave to amend.
    rarsen, bbjdog, dusdal and 1 others like this.
    08-25-16 09:58 PM
  22. Jh4454's Avatar
    OT: SPHS
    My thoughts, great time to buy when stock price below warrants value.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...article569060/

    Seems the warrants can be purchased by other institutions from partners site with specific ticker.

    We will be seeing more bulls and institutions come into this and we may see double digits very soon, again my thoughts unless I'm wrong. Today is the deal closing day.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    morganplus8, Corbu, rarsen and 3 others like this.
    08-26-16 05:45 AM
  23. rarsen's Avatar
    Very general suggestions for those accessing banking on smartphones, but a reminder to remain careful out there:

    8 Tips to Protect Your Phone and Money From Hacking - MoneyBeat - WSJ
    CDM76, bbjdog, Corbu and 3 others like this.
    08-26-16 07:33 AM
  24. Corbu's Avatar
    OT: U of T connection with the NSO Group/iPhone story
    https://www.utoronto.ca/news/researc...hone-espionage

    +this
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37192670

    Sorry for the OT. Thought the security aspect would be of interest to the readers of this thread, as we await for some BBRY news...
    08-26-16 08:45 AM
  25. bbjdog's Avatar
    08-26-16 11:05 AM
106,805 ... 39693970397139723973 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Does the Motion have the paratek antenna?
    By Steve Pogue in forum BlackBerry Motion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-13-18, 12:33 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-23-17, 11:06 PM
  3. Will Hub+ work on the new Google Pixelbook?
    By danosman in forum BlackBerry HUB+ Suite
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-17, 07:42 AM
  4. BlackBerry highlights the impact of KRACK vulnerability on BlackBerry products
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-17, 03:10 PM
  5. Hub and Viber notifications broken
    By LyoobaBerry in forum BlackBerry HUB+ Suite
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-17, 02:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD