That remains to be shown. Interesting info nevertheless. Extremely shifty on the part of Chishti. I wonder how any investors could trust him with their money in view of his past comportment. At the very least they'd have to lock him into bulletproof agreements or risk being played, as he has shown himself capable of. BTW the correct Latin is "ad nauseam", and out of respect for our Italian counterparts their names should be written Luigi and Enzo not Luigo and Enzio.
Maybe creative_cpa is you, maybe not. But in either case I have lost some respect for you. You stated the following in post #8575:
>>As to your argument that paragraph 7e survived the amendment. Such is not stated in the amended complaint. You would think an important claim like that would make it into the complaint. <<
When I showed your claim to be false, you ignored my post. You still are pretending you made no error.
O.K. So be it. Sometimes one communicates more by not saying a thing ...
Please remind me because I can't access all the filings from home ... The document where Zia was let out of his consulting agreement early - did that appear in an appendix of the Feb. 15 filing?
If neither company included that entire document or significant portions of it in their filings, I don't know how you can surmise that one is bluffing and the other not.
even assuming that the amended agreement does not expressly provide for survival of terms, the presumption is that the terms survivie upon amendmnet. In order for an undertaken obligation to go away, the party entitled to it must expressly waive it.
I and probably you for that matter could duplicate several things that are copyrighted. We're all clever once we see something created, indeed we could all probably improve on them. That doesn't mean it's acceptable conduct or indeed legal to do so. You seem to take a very light view of this, as evidently Orthoclear has taken. I own Align stock, and believe in the company, but I'm not that dim that I wouldn't objectively consider a serious threat to my investment from any quarter, which is why I don't fully understand the almost partisan support going on on this board. Some people want to see Align fail, others Orthoclear fail. Of course success for each side once the other side fails is going to come at a cost. It's heartening to see a couple of comments about constructive ways out of this scenario. Everybody loses in a war.
I find your comments about a director being within his rights to work against the board he is on, an insult to intelligence, and don't appreciate the twisting of legal statements to attempt to give this meaning, it's a stretch of the imagination at the very least. Nothing in your statements clearly demonstrates this point. We all have a right to free speech here, but misleading statements do not help advance the dialogue either. This is my opinion, please continue to feel free to express yours. From this board's history you used to criticize Abe's statements for exactly the same comportment, blatantly partisan as they used to be, hence my comment.
BTW I never said I was an artist nor am I in the habit of keeping my foot in my mouth. I'm here for the same reason you are, improving my view of the situation, unless you have some short position to defend,.
I think your logic fails here. Any businessman who wants to succeed wants to hire the best most qualified people, irrespective of the product. That's just common business sense. Let's say you were going to start an Italian restaurant. Would you hire people off the street with no experience waiting tables to be your waiters and then train them? Or, would you hire waiters named Luigo and Enzio with years of experience waiting tables in Italian restaurants?
My point was, why wouldn't you hire waiters like "Luigo and Enzio" from an Italian restaurant that was not a place that you once signed a non-solicitation agreement with, so that you can still hire someone with the right experience AND give your business a better shot of not getting sued/potentially shut down?
>>Thinking about a better why to make an orthodontic appliance is not a violation of a director's duties.<<
Are you suggesting that Zia had INVENTIONS which should have been recorded on the appropriate form before he left Align and which therefore should belong to Align?
>>The entire burden of proof is in ALGN. Their complaint is going nowhere. <<
Align has a lot of shots on goal; any one could win the game.
Yes it is a scathing release but just like yesterday's release from OrthoClear you could have gotten both companys' stories on the Court's website last week before their individual press releases. I still encourage all interested investors to read every document from cover to cover to come to your own conclusion about the likelihood of an injunction given the allegations from both sides.
I am sure OC insiders such as truthsayer and flinko will be able to explain away the Align press release this morning.
Is there any doubt about Zia's sleaze? No. The question is how it will all shake out in court. I still cannot believe people drink his kool-aid.