3 lawsuits against ati this month

[shabby]

Lawsuit #1
Lawsuit #2
Lawsuit #3

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of ATI between October 7, 2004 and June 22, 2005, inclusive, and sustained damages, you may, no later than October 17, 2005, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Ouch!

 

[ElFenix]

looks like an original and 2 copycat class actions. these things typically come out of the woodwork when any company does poorer than expected.

 

[Killrose]

Notice how no one has stepped up to be lead plaintif yet? These lawfirms are all fishing for a big one, someone who has lost a substial amount. I think once one firm gets the big one the other firms go home.

Awww, poor lawyers.

 

[Corporate Thug]

there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

there are a lot of lawsuits like that, actually. some people are actually professional plaintiffs. they buy 1 share in just about every company, and when something bad happens, a law firm they are associated with makes them lead plaintiff. the lawyers, if they win, can get their fees paid by the other side. they then pay some of that fee out to the professional plaintiff.

what a wonderful legal system we have.

 

[Bateluer]

Those lawsuits sound brilliant. Company A does poorer than expected. Shareholders file lawsuits, forcing the company to pay out money in legal fees, etc, meaning less money to develop and improvement their products. Just brilliant.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: Killrose
Notice how no one has stepped up to be lead plaintif yet? These lawfirms are all fishing for a big one, someone who has lost a substial amount. I think once one firm gets the big one the other firms go home.

Awww, poor lawyers.

That's not how securities fraud lawsuits work now. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the lead plaintiff is chosen by the court. And the best candidate for lead plaintiff is presumed to be the investor who has the largest financial loss.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

there are a lot of lawsuits like that, actually. some people are actually professional plaintiffs. they buy 1 share in just about every company, and when something bad happens, a law firm they are associated with makes them lead plaintiff. the lawyers, if they win, can get their fees paid by the other side. they then pay some of that fee out to the professional plaintiff.

what a wonderful legal system we have.

Nope, not anymore. See above.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Those lawsuits sound brilliant. Company A does poorer than expected. Shareholders file lawsuits, forcing the company to pay out money in legal fees, etc, meaning less money to develop and improvement their products. Just brilliant.

If you have paid any attention to ATi you would know that they have acted very shady lately. They did some stuff to artificially inflate earnings etc. Not saying a lot of companies dont but dont make ATi out to be a hero when they intentionally defrauded people.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Those lawsuits sound brilliant. Company A does poorer than expected. Shareholders file lawsuits, forcing the company to pay out money in legal fees, etc, meaning less money to develop and improvement their products. Just brilliant.

If you have paid any attention to ATi you would know that they have acted very shady lately. They did some stuff to artificially inflate earnings etc. Not saying a lot of companies dont but dont make ATi out to be a hero when they intentionally defrauded people.

Not too mention their own execs dumped 40% of their stock.

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Those lawsuits sound brilliant. Company A does poorer than expected. Shareholders file lawsuits, forcing the company to pay out money in legal fees, etc, meaning less money to develop and improvement their products. Just brilliant.

If you have paid any attention to ATi you would know that they have acted very shady lately. They did some stuff to artificially inflate earnings etc. Not saying a lot of companies dont but dont make ATi out to be a hero when they intentionally defrauded people.

Wow do you have the facts wrong. ATI didn't "inflate" their earnings... they didn't cook the books like Worldcom or defraud anyone.

ATI's financial results came in below their expectations and some people lost money and are pissed. ATI had forward looking statements in their previous quarterly report where they expected their growth and earnings to be slightly better than the previous quarter. This was in line with their last 18 months of buisness. EVERY quarterly report has forward looking statements. Of course things didn't pan out like the previous quarters and earnings slipped. That's why those forward looking statements have those huge disclaimers in them.. because companies can't predict the future anymore than stock brokers can.

These suits also claim allegations of insider trading by the CEO... however CEO's and other high figures at ATI announce plans to sell stock months and sometimes over a year in advance. Orton sold his stock according to this plan... simple as that.

IMO these are lawyers trying to cash in. I recently got paper work for the Global Crossing class action suit and discovered I could get a whopping 1/2 cent per share (this stock was $40 a share!) while the lawyers are getting millions. It would have cost me more for the stamp to return the paperwork than I could have won! These lawyers aren't out to help anyone but themselves!

If you lose money on forward looking statements and sue.. that's like demanding your money back when your lottery numbers don't come in. It's not a guarantee, it's the stock market.


p.s. I own ATI stock... and these lawsuits never mention that ATI stock is up 250% from 2.5 years ago. I've made money and lost money on it.... that's how the game is played.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

there are a lot of lawsuits like that, actually. some people are actually professional plaintiffs. they buy 1 share in just about every company, and when something bad happens, a law firm they are associated with makes them lead plaintiff. the lawyers, if they win, can get their fees paid by the other side. they then pay some of that fee out to the professional plaintiff.

what a wonderful legal system we have.

In the immortal words of one of the mega rich cons of the last 50 years, "Only in America".

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

there are a lot of lawsuits like that, actually. some people are actually professional plaintiffs. they buy 1 share in just about every company, and when something bad happens, a law firm they are associated with makes them lead plaintiff. the lawyers, if they win, can get their fees paid by the other side. they then pay some of that fee out to the professional plaintiff.

what a wonderful legal system we have.

In the immortal words of one of the mega rich cons of the last 50 years, "Only in America".

ATI is based in Canada...

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

there are a lot of lawsuits like that, actually. some people are actually professional plaintiffs. they buy 1 share in just about every company, and when something bad happens, a law firm they are associated with makes them lead plaintiff. the lawyers, if they win, can get their fees paid by the other side. they then pay some of that fee out to the professional plaintiff.

what a wonderful legal system we have.

In the immortal words of one of the mega rich cons of the last 50 years, "Only in America".

ATI is based in Canada...

All 7 lawsuits were filed in PA, USA.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jasonja

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

there are a lot of lawsuits like that, actually. some people are actually professional plaintiffs. they buy 1 share in just about every company, and when something bad happens, a law firm they are associated with makes them lead plaintiff. the lawyers, if they win, can get their fees paid by the other side. they then pay some of that fee out to the professional plaintiff.

what a wonderful legal system we have.

In the immortal words of one of the mega rich cons of the last 50 years, "Only in America".

ATI is based in Canada...

All 7 lawsuits were filed in PA, USA.

Point taken. My bad. :beer:

 

[Stoneburner]

Altered rules do not allow de minimis share holders to be held out as lead plaintiffs to prevent the practice of certain securities specialized law firms from having random people purchase single shares of stocks in public companies just for this reason. But as you can see it hasn't stopped law firms from fishing around, which isn't necessarily a bad thing considering it forces firms to be more honest.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
there was actually an amtrak lawsuit some 80 years ago where the plaintiff filed an anti-trust lawsuit against amtrak and he only owned one single share

there are a lot of lawsuits like that, actually. some people are actually professional plaintiffs. they buy 1 share in just about every company, and when something bad happens, a law firm they are associated with makes them lead plaintiff. the lawyers, if they win, can get their fees paid by the other side. they then pay some of that fee out to the professional plaintiff.

what a wonderful legal system we have.

In the immortal words of one of the mega rich cons of the last 50 years, "Only in America".

BTW, the ONE SHARE he ownded actually belonged to his 8 year old kid. LOL

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

It's spelled "hay caramba" AFAIK.