tomcat says - "They didn't specifically mention the Tacoda suit at Canaccord. The AOL suits are both still on. There are two of them."
browndiane says - "Absolutely untrue. I just listened to the entire presentation again and he SPECIFICALLY refers to the Tacoda case, scheduled for a November trial date. Based on what they already knew, that is coming very close to an out and out lie. Listen to it again."
and continues with...
"I added to my position following the call on Tuesday; I would not have done so if I had known about the AOL/Tacoda decision. I at least would have waited for the dust to settle before buying more. This just really makes me question the credibility and integrity of the leadership of this company. They may claim that a decision hadn't been reached yet on Tuesday. Anybody buying THAT?"
all within the thread "Aol/Tacoda is NOT being pursued"
What's your take?
Thank you for the complement. I can certainly sympathize with what you may be feeling and thinking having just added to your position without all the information, which may have otherwise prompted you to wait before adding. I can also sympathize with your re-evaluation about the truthfulness of the company management, I have had my doubts at times as well, I but choose to believe the positive picture they have painted is closer to the reality than not, having heard it from numerous others as well. I am also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt concerning their handling of the release of information, I hope you can also.
Having said that, I believe you may be rewarded despite what may be fumbling of the information, because, and you may ask yourself, if the big picture things that may have prompted you to add in the first place have really changed all that much, despite the news as of late? If they have, and it turns out to have been a mistake,then I am sorry. Lets hope that it works out well.
Hfb you are 100% right here. Sorry Brownindian I'm not trying to be a jerk but you continue to ignore what's already been explained by not only posters here but the company itself. Your expecting any company to discuss a specific judges ruling at a presentation is just plain stupid. No company would ever do this and especially when the ramifications of the ruling are still being debated by the company's lawyers. It's obvious to everyone but you that they didn't even make the determination to drop the Tacoda case till just the day before they released it. I just think your expectaions are completely unreaistic and totally unfair. It's easy for posters here sitting behind there screen to be critical and sometimes the company has deserved it. This just isn't one of those cases. I don't know what other shareholders think but I wish a lot of the recent complainers would just sell. If your not happy with your investment, just sell and move on. I can't be the only one that finds reading much of the whining and crying lately to be a complete waste of time. Go ahead Mr. 1 star, let the logging in and out commence.
hfb, well said. I can understand the initial reaction that brown has, and I applaud that investors are listening closely to what the company is saying, but the way this rolled out was indeed not intended to mislead or sugarcoat the Tacoda/AOL situation.
Brown, I am not attacking your feelings or opinion about this matter at all. But, IMO, this Canaccord forum was not the time or place to talk about a judge's ruling in one aspect of one case out of many, when a definitive response from the company had not yet been agreed upon by all the parties involved in making such a decision. Given the purpose of such presentations, the presenters go ahead with the planned presentation until the company makes an official determination on how to respond to a specific development, and then makes it publicly known to the extent that is advisable. To do otherwise is being far too "granular" for such a forum. Given the complexities of events that this management team is dealing with right now, I think this event is hardly one to determine our confidence in management.
You raise a good point. I find it hard to believe that he didn't already know, but regardless, discussing the case at all without mentioning the Judge's decision to limit the damages so significantly was misleading at best and this event has shaken my confidence in Augme management. BTW, thanks for your input - I find your posts to be very enlightening.
Agreed. Very insightful. I think what gets some folks is he is pointing out some positives when the negatives are all around.
He takes the emotions out of it and puts in the business perspective which I appreciate and can relate too.
for those of you who are bashing Arn, do you have any idea what your doing? and to whom? Arn is clearly 1 of the most articulate and intelligent people posting on ANY MESSAGE BOARD. if you had any sense you would be appreciative of all his posts. he has clearly and intelligently explained in exasperating detail, all we need to know about mobile marketing and augme technologies. I know most people on this board appreciate the time it takes to clearly lay out all the detail to make a well thought out post. I don't care if he is an insider, paul arena, or a mailman... we appreciate you ARN !!!
I think you are asking the wrong question. The question is why did they not disclose the judges decision at the conference?
It is obvious from the discussion and from what you found out from Arena that Mr. Bradley was not aware of the decision to not pursue the case at that time, probably because the decision had not been made yet.
If there was an omission, it was not disclosing the fact that the ruling may have a material impact on the shares in a timely fashion, and that is a different matter.
As arng has pointed out, if Mr. Bradley was thinking they were still going to go to court, despite what the judge ruled, then what he said was correct.
He may have walked in the next day and found out something else, just like we did.