% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • anotherlbcbalias anotherlbcbalias Feb 7, 2013 12:35 PM Flag

    It is illegal to bring forth a frivolous lawsuit

    "those 8 legal firms that brought action against ABAT on behalf of their clients should all be disbarred. It is illegal to bring forth a frivolous lawsuit with "no evidence"."

    There can be monetary civil penalties for frivolous litigation (see wikipedia). Vexatious litigation is something different. Maybe the SEC can police that like this anonymous message board?

    Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

    A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

    Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and such litigants therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or are required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions. In liberal democratic jurisdictions, declaring someone a vexatious litigant is considered to be a serious measure and rarely occurs, as judges and officials are reluctant to curtail a person's access to the courts.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Maybe ABAT does not want to accept the settlement, why pay 2 million it's still a lot of money. What may happen on the part of the plaintiffs is a committing of "failure to litigate" which they can be sued for. Or if they do have something then discovery. All of which adds to the timeline of proceedings.

    • Are you making a point or just trying to bury other posts?

      Yes, there are such things as frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. The delusional have accused Pomerantz of this even though the judge has said there are very "troubling" aspects to this case. VVR is called "crooks" even though there are no criminal charges against them. There hasn't been any civil action against them because there are no grounds. They documented some facts and what was opinion was presented as such with their supporting documentation. You guys still can't separate the VVR report from the complaint and amended complaint in the lawsuit. No, they are not one and the same. VVR has nothing to do with the court case.

      You also seem to think that settling a lawsuit somehow absolves one from guilt. It means nothing. Each case is settled on its own merits. The Plaintiff's attorneys could have said that there are no assets to attach and nothing to collect even when you win a big judgment and recommended taking whatever nominal amount they could get. It doesn't mean the allegations are not true. It means that there is nothing to collect even when you prove they are true.

      Why do you think there is no institutional interest in these companies and their P/Es are all low? It is because there is no recourse if they want to steal your money and go home like many have already done.

    • "Or perhaps it isn't the rest of the world that is wrong... it is YOU."

0.0410.000(0.00%)Dec 30 3:47 PMEST