InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 3128
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 11/09/2006

Re: None

Sunday, 09/24/2023 12:38:46 PM

Sunday, September 24, 2023 12:38:46 PM

Post# of 18314
I do like what "Charles" posted over on Yahoo referencing what "Nonya" was expressing.

Thank you for your enthusiastic response, Nonya. There are two possible explanations for the sudden dismissal with prejudice, although you only are only willing to cite one. It is possible that HDC's attorneys got to the discovery phase, saw that there was not enough in damages to warrant a continuation of the lawsuit, and therefore dismissed it with prejudice. I give you that. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE that some sort of an agreement (a settlement, if you will) was reached between the parties, that this agreement was signed by both parties, that this agreement was signed before the dismissal, AND that a nondisclosure clause was a part of this agreement. I am thus asserting that a settlement was reached BEFORE the dismissal, not AFTER (as you inferred). Therefore, it is entirely plausible that, although a settlement had been reached, the exact terms of the settlement were NOT to be disclosed publicly, pending the finalization of certain pending factors, like Venning. You seem to be stuck on only one possible explanation, when I can identify two, with the latter being the more likely (in my opinion). By the way, what is your background? I'm just curious.