Where did the 20 million shares short position come from?
The WSJ only noted 10 million shares shorted by goldie suchs...
Simultaneous to the Roche offer a NYC law firm filed a complaint against the board and executives of Illumina. The poison pill and golden parachutes were expected. This is part of an exposè of Illumina's shady business dealings. The majority if their sales are within the US and to US Govt subsidized labs.
This is cronyism business dealings using IP they do not own.
Meanwhile the vampire squid is short over 20 mm shares.
Affymetrix Wins $17 Million in Damages From Illumina (Update5)
By Phil Milford - March 13, 2007 18:10 EDT
March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Affymetrix Inc., a maker of tools used to analyze genetic material and diagnose diseases, won $16.7 million in damages in a jury verdict that rival Illumina Inc. infringed five of its patents. Illumina shares fell 7.8 percent.
The jury of eight women deliberated four hours after a week- long trial before returning the verdict today in Wilmington, Delaware federal court. Affymetrix sued in 2004 over patents for equipment that can identify genetic anomalies.
Affymetrix, whose customers include universities, hospitals and pharmaceutical firms, ``was the first company that ever sold this tool to anyone,'' company lawyer Michael Malacek told jurors during the trial. Illumina shares plunged $2.44 to $28.86 at 4 p.m. in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading. Affymetrix shares jumped 3.9 percent, or 99 cents, to $26.62.
The damage award represents about 40 percent of San Diego- based Illumina's $40 million in net income last year on sales of $184.5 million. Santa Clara, California-based Affymetrix had a $13.7 million net loss on $355.3 million in sales last year. The companies are vying for shares of the $1 billion DNA-analysis equipment market.
On October 3, 2003 the National Enquirer reported that Limbaugh was being investigated for illegally obtaining the prescription drugs oxycodone and hydrocodone. Other news outlets quickly confirmed the investigation. He admitted to listeners on his radio show on October 10, 2003 that he was addicted to prescription painkillers and stated that he would enter inpatient treatment for 30 days, immediately after the broadcast. Limbaugh stated his addiction to painkillers resulted from several years of severe back pain heightened by a botched surgery intended to correct those problems.
A subsequent investigation into whether Limbaugh had violated Florida's doctor shopping laws was launched by the Palm Beach State Attorney, which raised privacy issues when investigators seized Limbaugh's private medical records looking for evidence of crimes. On November 9, 2005, following two years of investigations, Assistant State Attorney James L. Martz requested the court to set aside Limbaugh's doctor–patient confidentiality rights and allow the state to question his physicians, stating it was necessary because "I have no idea if Mr. Limbaugh has completed the elements of any offense yet." Limbaugh's attorney opposed the prosecutor's efforts to interview his doctors on the basis of patient privacy rights, and argued that the prosecutor had violated Limbaugh's Fourth Amendment rights by illegally seizing his medical records. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement in agreement and filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Limbaugh. On December 12, 2005, Judge David F. Crow delivered a ruling prohibiting the State of Florida from questioning Limbaugh's physicians about "the medical condition of the patient and any information disclosed to the health care practitioner by the patient in the course of the care and treatment of the patient."
On April 28, 2006 a warrant was issued for his arrest on the charge of doctor shopping. According to Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the Sheriff, during his arrest, Limbaugh was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted, but not handcuffed. He was then released after about an hour on $3,000 bail. After his surrender, he filed a "not guilty" plea to the charge. Prosecutors agreed to drop the charge if Limbaugh paid $30,000 to defray the cost of the investigation and completed an 18-month therapy regimen with his physician.
Andrea Mackris, a former producer for The O'Reilly Factor, sued O'Reilly for sexual harassment on October 13, 2004, seeking $60 million in damages in response to a lawsuit O'Reilly filed previously that day charging Mackris for extortion, alleging that she had threatened a lawsuit unless he paid her more than $60 million. In her allegations against O'Reilly, Mackris claimed two types of legally recognizable sexual harassment claims that are not based upon physical contact: quid pro quo and hostile work environment. In her lawsuit, she filed a 22-page complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York and produced quotations from alleged explicit phone conversations between herself and O’Reilly in which he "advised her to use a vibrator and told her about sexual fantasies involving her". On October 15, 2004, Fox sought judicial permission to fire Mackris, but she was never dismissed. On October 19, 2004, Mackris filed an amended complaint seeking further damages for illegal retaliatory actions by O'Reilly, Fox News, and the News Corporation-owned newspaper, The New York Post. On October 28, 2004, O'Reilly and Mackris reached an out-of-court settlement and dropped all charges against each other. According to several published reports, as part of the settlement, O'Reilly likely paid Mackris millions of dollars, but the terms of the agreement are confidential.
What will you write when Roche withdraws their offer for ILMN?
You sound like sexual predator Bill O'Reilly or narcotics drug user Rush Limbaugh. It must be nice to throw barbs and not go to jail for felonies that you commit.
Sorry to disillusion you, but the moose and I are two different people, although I largely agree with his characterization of your posts. If you bothered to check the posting history for each of us, it''d be pretty obvious there are two people involved.
Do you really think that Roche wasn't aware of LIFE and Ion Torrent before they made the bid for ILMN? Seriously? It's not like LIFE wasn't promoting Ion Torrent well before Roche's bid. Lind is correct - Roche's bid is serious, the offer will be extended, and Roche will eventually prevail, unless ILMN elects to put itself up for sale - even then they might prevail.
The question is, when you're proven wrong will you be big enough to admit it?