Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
Returning to my TRO analogy, 2 years after the suit is filed, the executives at the company -- those who agreed that filing was a good idea as well as those who disagreed -- all probably think that the legal approach I pursued was ineffective. Was I puffing my chances of getting the TRO, or was I just incompetent? Does it matter? My approach has failed, and since I don't seem to recognize this, and instead keep insisting that I'm going to win any day now without really aknowledging that I screwed up (although now I say that I'm going for long-term results, and a judgment for an injunction instead of a mere TRO), why should my clients be satisfied with an answer like "well, either you think that the infringer should have been left alone, or you should agree with me?"
|
Yes, except when presented with all of the above, your client chooses, pursuant to the directions of its Shareholders, by an overwhelming vote of the shares, to continue to pursue the TRO via your legal strategy. That's the part you Dems wilfully fail to acknowledge, this was put to a vote of the Shareholders and the result was stay the course. Your poison pill play (aka Monsieur Kerry) lost.
While you are certainly left with your dissenters' rights to whine, wouldn't it be better to liquidate your shares and invest the proceeds in France?
