[vespajet]

Even if the appropriate US and Canadian gov't authorities sanctioned this firm and forced it out of business, there would be little to stop them from reopening under a new name the very next day. Filing a class action lawsuit against this particular firm would likely result in a hollow victory, as if they were forced to pay shareholders in a class, those folks would likely get very little money. There's been several class action lawsuits against major companies that I could have been part of that I declined to join because the expected settlement was hardly worth it.

[boi2012]

of course everybody and i mean everybody should have noticed the report was bogus, i mean, you simply cannot return more than you sell.
they made the remark of higher returns for dramatic effect and the market fell for it. so who is to blame? the market for rolling over for an obvious bogus report or the authors?
Blackberry did their job, they protested and asked SEC to take a look, that should be the end of it as far as Blackberry involved, they should be focused on selling phones.
the one negative for Blackberry is after the launch in other countries BB always said sales exceeded expectations, but in the US the sales MEET expectations, perhaps this is cause for concern, because did BB ramp up expectations for Z10 in the US or are the sales just not better than expected, who knows?

I don't think it's a bogus claim to say that the rate of returns exceed the rate of sales. If 100 customers come into a store and purchase a z10-- let's say that they have a grace period of up to 14 days to return the phone for whatever reason and obtain a refund or exchange it for another brand/model-- then the store might constitute a sale as being phones that are NOT returned within the grace period as an "Actual Sale."

Now, if 70 people come back into the store and return their z10s for a refund or exchange it for a different phone/brand, then the rate and number of returns are higher than the rate of sales, since only 30 people kept their z10's (actual sales) beyond the grace period compared to the 70 who returned their phones within the grace period. Their returns aren't considered as sales but, returns.

I think the headlines were sensationalized a bit and meant to grab headlines, but the rate of returns exceeding the rate of sales is a possibility.

[ray689]

Even if the appropriate US and Canadian gov't authorities sanctioned this firm and forced it out of business, there would be little to stop them from reopening under a new name the very next day. Filing a class action lawsuit against this particular firm would likely result in a hollow victory, as if they were forced to pay shareholders in a class, those folks would likely get very little money. There's been several class action lawsuits against major companies that I could have been part of that I declined to join because the expected settlement was hardly worth it.

You are correct. Just speaks to the lax legal system when it comes to white collar type crime.

Posted via CB10

[Scott Lefebvre]

do you believe this to be the case ?? Really

I don't think it's a bogus claim to say that the rate of returns exceed the rate of sales. If 100 customers come into a store and purchase a z10-- let's say that they have a grace period of up to 14 days to return the phone for whatever reason and obtain a refund or exchange it for another brand/model-- then the store might constitute a sale as being phones that are NOT returned within the grace period as an "Actual Sale."

Now, if 70 people come back into the store and return their z10s for a refund or exchange it for a different phone/brand, then the rate and number of returns are higher than the rate of sales, since only 30 people kept their z10's (actual sale) beyond the grace period compared to the 70 who returned their phones within the grace period which isn't a sale, but a return..

I think the headlines were sensationalized a bit and meant to grab headlines, but the rate of returns exceeding the rate of sales is a possibility.

[Admorris]

I think the above scenario is actually a VERY real possibility, as that is probably one of the reason Thorsten won't or cannot answer a question regarding actual sales numbers vs shipped numbers. I doubt you'll see BB do any more than they've already done...it may bring more negative exposure to them that they don't need.
Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Foroplex

[boi2012]

do you believe this to be the case ?? Really

I'm not saying that it is the case, or am I speculating. I'm just giving an example of how I interpreted and understood the statement. I found the statement over the top, but I didn't think it was impossible and absurd as some people think. We all communicate, process and interpret words differently, I'm just sharing my understanding of the statement, that's all.

[edu3110]

I agree! I don't know why the market gave credibility to this organization.

Posted via CB10

[raino]

Apple's lawsuits derive material economic benefit. (Samsung's products have been subject to injunction a number of times.)

What about lawsuits where your company gets sued? How many times has Apple been sued like that (based upon Samsung's claim to "material economic benefit," DOJ antitrust allegations, Chinese and Brazilian companies exerting their trademarks, etc.) within the past year?

My point is lawsuits should hardly be a deciding factor in shareholders' eyes when trading/holding/selling stock. If you're buying stock in a tech company, you best believe lawsuits will happen.

[bambinoitaliano]

I agree! I don't know why the market gave credibility to this organization.

Posted via CB10

Because market is about speculation often unsubstantiated at that. It's about playing up the emotion, both negative and positive. That's what drives the bull and bear market. Those who are good and fortunate enough to tap into the sentiment of the market win big.

[Shanerredflag]

Because market is about speculation often unsubstantiated at that. It's about playing up the emotion, both negative and positive. That's what drives the bull and bear market. Those who are good and fortunate enough to tap into the sentiment of the market win big.

Well said...two thumbs up.

Posted via CB10

[TheScionicMan]

Class Action suits don't cost anyone but the lawyers, but they get the most out of them.

That is not true at all. They will need to gather evidence from both sides. Discovery, depositions, filings, pre-trial hearings, etc. This takes up a lot of time and resources for both sides involved. There's a lot more to a lawsuit than providing a spreadsheet of sales figures and letting the court decide. Depending on the areas of expertise of its in-house counsel, BlackBerry may have to bring in a law firm to help. Unless there's a high probability of success, and in this case it doesn't appear that way, most firms aren't going to take the case on contingency. If they filed a suit tomorrow, it probably wouldn't actually get to court until late 2014 or 2015. It might generate a few headlines but won't really change anything that is going to affect the stock positively.

The odds of anything making it back to the shareholders is slim

[angrybear123]

Well, is there any way to PROVE that Detwiler is just publishing incorrect, manipulative stories, on purpose? No.

They can easily say they did the research to the best of their ability, and these are the results. Maybe those results are wrong, analysts are wrong all the time... But that's not grounds for a lawsuit.

In fact, what is the difference between RandomCrackBerryUser123 posting here and saying he thinks BBRY is great, and Detwiler publishing something about BBRY being junk? The only difference is the market seems to listen to Detwiler, they have a strong voice. But the more wrong they are, the more that voice diminishes.

If BBRY wants companies to stop launching bear raids against their shares, they need to produce some results, and sell a good story to the market. They have not really done that yet. I'm hopeful for Q1, but we'll see.

[silversun10]

Well, is there any way to PROVE that Detwiler is just publishing incorrect, manipulative stories, on purpose? No.

They can easily say they did the research to the best of their ability, and these are the results. Maybe those results are wrong, analysts are wrong all the time... But that's not grounds for a lawsuit.

In fact, what is the difference between RandomCrackBerryUser123 posting here and saying he thinks BBRY is great, and Detwiler publishing something about BBRY being junk? The only difference is the market seems to listen to Detwiler, they have a strong voice. But the more wrong they are, the more that voice diminishes.

If BBRY wants companies to stop launching bear raids against their shares, they need to produce some results, and sell a good story to the market. They have not really done that yet. I'm hopeful for Q1, but we'll see.

Blackberry has the inside track and they say Detwiler came up with a bogus report, what more do you need to know? or do you believe Detwiler over Blackberry?
Besides you CANNOT return more phones than SELL those phones it just does not exist, what more proof do you need? geez people....

[Kennedy.L]

I would agree with that if it was a free market but market manipulation happens on a daily basis.

Posted via CB10

What I mean by the market is always right is... try telling it is wrong.

[Kennedy.L]

I say let this stuff happen.

BB.CA and BBRY are on sale this week, an excellent buying opportunity and the market will correct itself once the facts are set straight. Meanwhile pick some more shares up during the limited time firesale (unlike the PlayBook).

[Admorris]

Originally Posted by angrybear123
Well, is there any way to PROVE that Detwiler is just publishing incorrect, manipulative stories, on purpose? No.

They can easily say they did the research to the best of their ability, and these are the results. Maybe those results are wrong, analysts are wrong all the time... But that's not grounds for a lawsuit.

In fact, what is the difference between RandomCrackBerryUser123 posting here and saying he thinks BBRY is great, and Detwiler publishing something about BBRY being junk? The only difference is the market seems to listen to Detwiler, they have a strong voice. But the more wrong they are, the more that voice diminishes.

If BBRY wants companies to stop launching bear raids against their shares, they need to produce some results, and sell a good story to the market. They have not really done that yet. I'm hopeful for Q1, but we'll see.

Blackberry has the inside track and they say Detwiler came up with a bogus report, what more do you need to know? or do you believe Detwiler over Blackberry?
Besides you CANNOT return more phones than SELL those phones it just does not exist, what more proof do you need? geez people....

God, seriously use your brain. Many many people on here have explained how you have more phones returned than you are selling...please do yourself a favor and read. You have taken that statement out of context. If a store sold 100 phones on week one, then 30 during the current week, but had 40 phones returned during this same current week, that store had more phones currently being returned than sold. Not complicated.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Foroplex

[Gerard Fraser]

All that matters that the Detwiler story took 500 million of cap for BlackBerry.That succeed in what they wanted to do.If I was paying these guys they would all be rich.
If all it takes for someone to say BlackBerry sucks and the stock drops 8% and people believe it , then people saying its possible that returns are higher than sales, then do not invest in BlackBerry.

It might hurt but get off the glue people.Its a phone,it will sell and stock will be fine.
BlackBerry is not going anywhere.It is here to stay and make money.

[junelises]

Admorris, do you have an inside track on the detwiler report? Cause as far as I know, they did not clarify their statement in that context. If you look at this quote in isolation "We believe key retail partners have seen a significant increase in Z10 returns to the point where, in several cases, returns are now exceeding sales, a phenomenon we have never seen before,” this one sentence taken on it's own means that several partners, not stores, are experiencing greater returns than sales. For Bbry, an example,etc of a partner would be a carrier such as Verizon. Thus, detwiler is claiming that returns are exceeding sales nationwide at Verizon and other partners. They crossed the red line because they use word "partners" which is blatantly false information, instead of "stores".

[angrybear123]

I'm NOT saying they are correct, NOR am I defending their story.
I am merely saying that you can't SUE someone, because they were wrong.

[ray689]

Again being wrong would suggest that they showed some reports and research explaining their methodology which they are not willing to do. So being wrong and lying are not the same thing.

Posted via CB10

[silversun10]

God, seriously use your brain. Many many people on here have explained how you have more phones returned than you are selling...please do yourself a favor and read. You have taken that statement out of context. If a store sold 100 phones on week one, then 30 during the current week, but had 40 phones returned during this same current week, that store had more phones currently being returned than sold. Not complicated.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Foroplex

Only if you use some weasel language can you justify more returns than sales, but in a meaningful way you cannot return more than you sell. So again it is a bogus report, meant to tank BlackBerry. And besides BB already confirmed the report is bogus, so why there are still people defending the report is beyond me.

[Omnitech]

Remember, people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

While I agree with most of your comments in this thread, let me remind you that that axiom as a legal doctrine only applies in certain countries and/or jurisdictions within certain countries. And even in places it allegedly is the law of the land, it is often subverted anyway. Case in point: in the country most famous for that doctrine, "money talks", basically.

I think what BBRY is doing on this is fine, and I'm glad they waited until the published claim was so blatantly and egregiously false that there is virtually no likelihood that they will be on the losing end of this.

And even if, as I expect, any sanctions and/or fines would be unimpressive in and of themselves, I do think it will likely be taken notice-of by a lot of the fraudulent market spinmeisters and make them think twice before they throw the next piece of stupid made-up FUD out there against BBRY.

The market is always right.

The easiest way to discredit the returns claim is to increase the sales numbers significantly. Facts always stand up.

There is all sorts of evidence that by-and-large, the people who have bought the Z10 are very, very happy with them overall. One of the reasons why bogus "research" like this DF cr*p sticks out like a sore thumb is because it is so contradictory to the statistics that people DO have access-to, for example the various public ratings on the device from other entities, posted in the following thread, which are not generated on "fanboy" sites but from ie giant resellers like Amazon or by the various carriers selling the Z10:

http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...action-795530/


If all the empirical evidence suggested that buyers were really hating the device and returning them in droves, then DF's claims wouldn't get much attention at all. But when something flies in the face of all other available evidence (either direct or indirect), then something is seriously fishy and in the case of companies in the position of potentially making or losing various parties millions of dollars over their published "research", then it's time to put up or shut up. (Or be shut down)

If this is the case, BBRY will be opening a can of worms by inviting govt scrutiny of analysts opinions. Govt entities don't take marching orders from the CEO. They will investigate whatever they want to and BBRY will need to back up their public statements with facts too.

The largest cellular carrier in the USA stood right next to BBRY, was named in BBRY's press release, and said DF's FUD was BS.

When you are a True Believer, you often refuse to see Capital-R Reality no matter how hard it is currently biting you on your *ss.

The stock drops 8%, it'll be tough to prove causation (were other tech stocks/sectors down that day); maybe Detwiler was the direct cause or maybe it was the last bit of news that week which prompted people to bail.

I saw articles that day from "reputable" organizations like either WSJ or Barrons etc making the connection between BBRY's ~8% share price drop and DF's FUD, so whether or not you think it may be tough to prove, other firms have already been shooting off their figurative mouths making that exact correlation.

Which in itself could be said to be a slightly more indirect method of market manipulation and magnification of the original FUD.

Bottom line is: BBRY for some reason suffers from some incredible, I'd even say bizarre level of caustic animosity in the USA, the likes of which are seen nowhere else in the world.

Why is that? I have some ideas. Some of them have to do with some large well-funded US competitors. Some of them have nothing to do with that. But there is something awfully strange going on with this bitter animosity from various US-centric entities against BBRY.

[bovcrx]

I will never understand why BB gets bashed the way they do.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[world traveler and former ceo]

Long overdue by Blackberry! .... good move !!!

[texazzpete]

Long overdue by Blackberry! .... good move !!!

It would be a much better move if you read the topic carefully first