Rollin, maybe i'm misreading your post but my understanding is that the trial that concluded last year was the actual proceeding to argue the expectancy damages. The summary judgement concluded, as we know, in 2003, so the expectancy piece moved forward into this trial. So i would think somone who was present at the trials or have access to court records, all public info, would have some sense of the arguments and who was winning and based on that would impact dimez. If i were near dc i would want to go adn look up the records myself.
Yes, summary was granted on the actual stock offering (but not the hypotheical stock offering theory) and the lost estimate is credible vis-a-vis the Fifth verdict but the cauality is different. In Fitfh, the stock conversion was a direct forced sale to raise capital to get back into compliance; In Anchor's case teh stock offering was done not related to the breach but they couldn't raise as much becuase they didn't have RFC or branches in their asset base. I know the loss has to be borne directly out of the breach but this one can be argued either way.
Yes, both sides can appeal but once they publish the verdict it'll be easier to get a sense which way it would go as now there are engough similar settled cases for guidance. My guess is $270M at the minimum.
i'll send you email later today. i've known about home security for some time. what a coincidence. their floating armor should be a hit but governmetn contracts take a long time.
