[1magine]

Sadly enough, almost anyone can file a lawsuit. Most people who think they have been wronged in some way can find an attorney willing to take their money despite whether or not they have a legitimate case.

Unfortunately, there are far to many bloggers/reports/analyst that think they know the law, but are not attorneys, nor do they do their case law research before they write articles. So, incorrect information continues to bleed into the bloggospher which shows up on Google Finance-RIMM and investors start pushing the sell buttons.

Cry wolf and the sheep will run!

Wrong - at least in the US. Filing a suit without a clear basis in fact and law for recovery is not only an offense for which one can be disbarred, it is a violation of court rules for which an attorney can be held in contempt, fined civilly or have criminal charges leveled.

I have never understood this lawyer bashing. Remember cases are almost always brought before a jury. Juries are pretty damn good at seeing throught the BS . Yet so many refuse to accept that a jury sitting in court and hearing the actual testimony is in a better position to decide than someone watching the 6pm news. Let alone this is the only profession whereby the state either requires or strongly encourages at least 20 hours of service to the community in the form of Pro-Bono hours each year. Most of the attorneys I work with exceed 100 hours, many 200 hours helping those less fortunate.

[kraski]

RIM management needs to be held accountable. I believe they lied to everyone. Even at the last Jam session, they were talking about releasing BB10 "later this year".

Both the US and Canadian authorities should pursue this. If for nothing else, at least it would keep these guys from continuing to lie to investors.

So, which management needs to be held accountable? Old, new, or both?

I take it you don't really care if BB10 makes it to market or if RIM continues to exist. Enough lawsuits and government regulatory investigations and no one will back RIM enough to get BB10 out and for RIM to stay in business. Of course, it might be really interesting to to see how many of the investors that want to sue also have sizable investments in Apple, Google, and/or other phone makers.

[1magine]

Willful misrepresentation does seem like a pretty high hurdle although that has never
stopped people from suing on that basis (or lawyers from taking the case.)

I guess as a non lawyer I am really interested in the merits of these actions and
whether or not they "have legs"

Many do. However, most large corporations see to it that they hire as many top law firms each year for a t least a few hours work. This prevents small shareholders who often have a legitimate case (holds true for IP as well) from using the big boys to assist them as the case can not clear conflicts. And trust me, a 24-7 large international law firm has near unlimited resources to bury even mid-size boutiques.

[kraski]

Willful misrepresentation does seem like a pretty high hurdle although that has never
stopped people from suing on that basis (or lawyers from taking the case.)

I guess as a non lawyer I am really interested in the merits of these actions and
whether or not they "have legs"

I'm not a lawyer, either. And it's been a bunch of years since my business law course in college. But every case I've ever read about seems to indicate the accuser has to have a certain amount of documentation before such a charge will even go to court. And have to solidly prove that or more before they'll get a favorable judicial judgement, from judge or jury.

[amazinglygraceless]

Many do. However, most large corporations see to it that they hire as many top law firms each year for a t least a few hours work. This prevents small shareholders who often have a legitimate case (holds true for IP as well) from using the big boys to assist them as the case can not clear conflicts. And trust me, a 24-7 large international law firm has near unlimited resources to bury even mid-size boutiques.

I hadn't thought about that but I do remember from my days in the late 80's at R&C (being
from CT you will know that one) how several associates and a few partners were
on retainer for ostensibly that reason.

[JasW]

ya dream on, there will never, ever be a lawsuit, and you can take that to a too big to fail bank and yes the article lead with the Apple guy, but ignorance is bliss, so enjoy it

So we'll just ignore the Duke law professor who is quoted as saying there is a "high risk" of litigation. Okeedoke.

it's 6:07 PM here and I read the paperS hours ago ... You may consider others point of view with a tiny confidence. I don't know what puts you in such nerves regarding RIM, but I've seen nothing bearly near to positive/optimistic from you for weeks now. I think we got the (your) message. If only you took 10% of your time ... arff ... wasting mine. no matter. Welcome on my ignore list, you're the very first.

?????????? Jeez, are we thin-skinned, or what? And "for weeks now," I've seen nothing -- NOTHING -- to be optimistic or positive about.

I don't think JL Gassee is "simply one individual" contacted by the reporter. Do you read what he writes about RIM in his column? This, for example, from his July 1 post:

Can Heins stick to his guns? We�ll see what he has to say after his brand new (effective July 1st) General Counsel, Steve Zipperstein, takes him aside and whispers in his ear about shareholder lawsuits.
| http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/07/01...-next-for-rim/

I would suspect that the NYT reporter started doing some research after reading Gassee's column, but who knows ...

Gassee regularly writes about RIM, and he has a dim view of the company to say the least ... e.g. the post entitled "RIM: The inmates have taken over the asylum." He is certainly interesting to read, whether you agree or not.
| Rim | Monday Note
| RIM: The inmates have taken over the asylum | Monday Note

So this guy Gassee is so influential that he can dupe a NY Times reporter into writing an article that has no basis in reality? Of course it has a basis in reality, with or without Gassee. Shareholder lawsuits are not exactly his idea alone. And as the article points out, the problem is proving that Heins knew there would be a delay back when he gave his speech in early May, and whether there will actually be any percentage in pursuing a suit given RIM is in deep trouble as it is.

I'll put some happy faces here so I don't sound so negative about RIM:

[1magine]

So, which management needs to be held accountable? Old, new, or both?

I take it you don't really care if BB10 makes it to market or if RIM continues to exist. Enough lawsuits and government regulatory investigations and no one will back RIM enough to get BB10 out and for RIM to stay in business. Of course, it might be really interesting to to see how many of the investors that want to sue also have sizable investments in Apple, Google, and/or other phone makers.

You know - I've said this before, enough times that even I'm tired of repeating myself.

RIMM's situation is not the fault of Apple. Google did not do this to them. The media did not conspire to harm them. Lawyers, fans of competing handsets, the zodiac, poorly informed consumers, Steve Jobs, Microsoft, poor promotion and me all had nothing to do with RIMM's current problems. RIMM DID THIS TO THEMSELVES. AND REPEATEDLY. WITH ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE. They have turned out handsets for nearly 5 years that were well behind the leading edge in hardware and later software. They refused to add things like media players, cameras, wifi, necessary memory and cpus until they were generations behind. Even when they recognonized that they could no longer produce Java based handsets and needed to switch , they dragged their feet and refused to listen to investors and advisors that told them to avoid the tablet market and focus on regaining their handheld market. And we will be 3+ years from the acquisition of QNX until the first non-java handheld hits the market. It was not a single bad handset. Nor a single poor decision. It was a failure to lead and a failure to manage from nearly all levels of the company. And each time we heard insiders tell us and in-turn try to reach the the3 company decision makers, about the lack of meritocracy that pervades the company like a cancer; too many wrote it off or attacked the reporters of such information, and never sought to analyze the truth of the information presented.

RIMM is where they are today, because they made it so. I believe we should all be accountable for our actions. Sometimes it means taking some hits for poor choices. Whether you like it or not, RIMM too is being held accountable for poor choices.

[njblackberry]

Are you sure it isn't part of some left or right wing US-based media conspiracy?

</sarcasm>

[TheScionicMan]

Typical shakedown. Happens to most large public companies. There will be posturing on both sides followed by a pre-trial settlement. I worked on many of these when I was a paralegal

[njblackberry]

And the only ones to make money are the lawyers, which is why I *never* join a shareholder class action suit, no matter how outrageous the corporate behavior.

[Mister-E]

I never understood how shareholder lawsuits work. You own shares of the company, so it is like suing yourself. Is the suit available to certain qualifying shareholders, eg anyone who bought shares during a certain period of time? What could someone win per shar in this case?

[FigureThisOut]

This really does look punitive to me. Or maybe just a power play on the part
of some shareholders. Either way I think it stinks.

I can't walk away from this article without thinking this very same thing. Except that I go
a little beyond the maybe, personally.

I know it wasn't very smart of Heins to state that the company was fine the way it is. I
just don't know if that's "willful misrepresentation.", as I play armchair litigator here. I'm on
the fence as a consumer with the promising of BB10 Q4 this year, only to be delayed until
Q1 next year. I just don't feel if I'm a shareholder that I can be this offended by that. This
is where I think the power play comes in.

[Canuck671]

the weather man promised it was going to be sunny. i made plans and it rained. -I AM SUING.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

[chr1sny]

?????????? Jeez, are we thin-skinned, or what? And "for weeks now," I've seen nothing -- NOTHING -- to be optimistic or positive about.

Agreed. For those who accuse others of being "haters", I wonder what articles/developments form the basis for such unflappable optimism?

Message boards should present all points of view.

[JasW]

And the only ones to make money are the lawyers, which is why I *never* join a shareholder class action suit, no matter how outrageous the corporate behavior.

Even if that's so, the threat of such lawsuits acts as a deterrent to outrageous corporate behavior.

I never understood how shareholder lawsuits work. You own shares of the company, so it is like suing yourself. Is the suit available to certain qualifying shareholders, eg anyone who bought shares during a certain period of time? What could someone win per shar in this case?

They're called shareholder derivative suits, because the plaintiffs derive the right to sue in the name of the company by being shareholders in the company. The defendant is not the company itself, but generally a director or officer of the company.

[chr1sny]

the weather man promised it was going to be sunny. i made plans and it rained. -I AM SUING.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Weathermen don't have fiduciary duties to their viewers.

[chr1sny]

I can't walk away from this article without thinking this very same thing. Except that I go
a little beyond the maybe, personally.

I know it wasn't very smart of Heins to state that the company was fine the way it is. I
just don't know if that's "willful misrepresentation.", as I play armchair litigator here. I'm on
the fence as a consumer with the promising of BB10 Q4 this year, only to be delayed until
Q1 next year. I just don't feel if I'm a shareholder that I can be this offended by that. This
is where I think the power play comes in.

None of us can really substantively comment on the merits of the suit without being closer to the ground.

If you were a shareholder and Heins' statements about "BB10 being ready by the end of the year" played a material factor in your decision not to sell your stock, you might empathize a bit more with any potential litigants.

[FigureThisOut]

None of us can really substantively comment on the merits of the suit without being closer to the ground.

If you were a shareholder and Heins' statements about "BB10 being ready by the end of the year" played a material factor in your decision not to sell your stock, you might empathize a bit more with any potential litigants.

But we are. It's discussion.

[bungaboy]

These are shareholder lawsuits and they might have merit. From a customer standpoint, delaying BB10 until it's ready might be a good idea. From a shareholder standpoint, talking up a release date and then pulling the rug on it might be willful deception.

Lawyers like to litigate. I doubt this will change RIM's fortunes for the worse over the next year.

You honestly believe RIM is the first Company to miss a promised deadline?

Happens every day.

This is just more spam by stock manipulators and ambulance chasers.

Might, may, could . . . .

[Laura Knotek]

If one can be punished for acting on leaked information that was not yet made available (insider trading), then one who withholds information that should be made available should also be held accountable.

[bungaboy]

Yeah, saw that too, good luck with this.

Awwww. Your very fist post.

Come on in. Introduce yourself first. Tell us a bit about yourself. Add the phone and carrier to your information.

[bungaboy]

Willful misrepresentation does seem like a pretty high hurdle although that has never
stopped people from suing on that basis (or lawyers from taking the case.)

I guess as a non lawyer I am really interested in the merits of these actions and
whether or not they "have legs"

I'm glad you cleared that up. I was getting another impression altogether.

[chr1sny]

I know it wasn't very smart of Heins to state that the company was fine the way it is. I
just don't know if that's "willful misrepresentation.", as I play armchair litigator here. I'm on
the fence as a consumer with the promising of BB10 Q4 this year, only to be delayed until
Q1 next year. I just don't feel if I'm a shareholder that I can be this offended by that. This
is where I think the power play comes in.

You honestly believe RIM is the first Company to miss a promised deadline?

Happens every day.

This is just more spam by stock manipulators and ambulance chasers.

Might, may, could . . . .

I think you guys are missing the point. The alleged willfull misrepresentation would center around whether Heins knew that BB10 was going to be delayed when he made statements about BB10 being ready by year's end. I'm sure that will be one of the main subjects of discovery if any suit is filed. Heins' knowledge or lack thereof will be the subject of depositions, document requests for internal communications, etc.

The article touched on the fact that the relatively short amount of time between Heins' statement that BB10 would be ready by year's end and his latter postponement of BB10 into 2013 seems fishy.

RIMM blowing its deadline is besides the point.

[bungaboy]

Wrong - at least in the US. Filing a suit without a clear basis in fact and law for recovery is not only an offense for which one can be disbarred, it is a violation of court rules for which an attorney can be held in contempt, fined civilly or have criminal charges leveled.

I have never understood this lawyer bashing. Remember cases are almost always brought before a jury. Juries are pretty damn good at seeing throught the BS . Yet so many refuse to accept that a jury sitting in court and hearing the actual testimony is in a better position to decide than someone watching the 6pm news. Let alone this is the only profession whereby the state either requires or strongly encourages at least 20 hours of service to the community in the form of Pro-Bono hours each year. Most of the attorneys I work with exceed 100 hours, many 200 hours helping those less fortunate.

Fluff, lots of fluff.

What you say and what really happens are completely different on the street.

No such a thing as frivolous law suits?

No such thing as "tie them up in court until the bleed to death or cry mercy?

Community Pro-Bono hours = rubbing shoulders at parties and picnics and political functions to be seen.

OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony . . . . . .

[rickbansal]

He's not "the source," as if he leaked some secret. He's simply one individual among many the reporter talked to. Did either of you read the article? It seems not. Indeed, the article says that it is relying on "[s]everal securities law experts and some investors." I suppose the law professors who are quoted also have some anti-RIM axe to grind. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So, which management needs to be held accountable? Old, new, or both?

I take it you don't really care if BB10 makes it to market or if RIM continues to exist. Enough lawsuits and government regulatory investigations and no one will back RIM enough to get BB10 out and for RIM to stay in business. Of course, it might be really interesting to to see how many of the investors that want to sue also have sizable investments in Apple, Google, and/or other phone makers.

I'd like to see both be held accountable because both have misled.

I would love to see BB10 in the market. I just don't think RIM, in its current form (read - management and structure) can make it successful. They need to find a very strong partner to give them the credibility they need (from both investors and consumers) to not only launch BB10 but give enough confidence to everyone that they will be around to support it.