InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 765
Posts 43017
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 03/11/2004

Re: Giovinco post# 61160

Thursday, 10/08/2015 1:30:59 PM

Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:30:59 PM

Post# of 68424
Here's what I'd like to have seen. The parties anticipated a breach of the NDA and provided for an injunction if it was violated as monetary damages, if any, may be inadequate. The agreed to that in an express agreement. Judge Kaplan has already held that ZTE violated that agreement. I'd like to have seen V request a temporary injunction banning the import and sale of all goods in the U.S. until the time of trial where it would then be decided whether or not he would make that injunction permanent. I think it would have been an appropriate sanction, and it's already something that Z agreed to.

I believe that once Kaplan rules on the Sanctions motion that Z will file for a Writ of Mandamus. Had the injunction been granted then V would get a look on the decision on Mandamus of how the appellate court felt about it, which may have been somewhat instructive as to how they proceeded on it at the time of trial and in their request to make the injunction permanent at that time.

Didn't happen so don't really know how that would have worked or whether Judge Kaplan would have granted it or not, but sure would have been interesting to see how it would have had the dominoes fallen that way.



Giovinco Thursday, 10/08/15 01:01:52 PM
Re: None
Post # of 61161

JJ, would you have asked for an injunction already ?



I am not a broker and profess to know nothing about trading stocks. Do your own DD. Buy, don't buy...sell, or don't sell at your own risk.