Sonyboy~~Concerning your statement, "And it seems to me that the jury who heard the case was probably not impressed with Doug's "trustworthiness" because they wanted to award the Raos more than they had asked for. It looks like the jury thought Doug's behavior was particularly egregious."
I would say that the Judge disagreed with you last Thursday.
Excerpt from last Thursday's decision regarding the Rao Case:
"The evidence put forth by the plaintiffs is not enough to justify a punitive damages award. First, the fact that HQ was in the process of purchasing IntelliServices negates allegations of malice or reckless disregard as to the press releases and the Form 10 KSB/A. After all, the defendants did sign agreements with Dr. Hemanth Rao, Prithvi Rao, and Mohan Korrapati to purchase IntelliServices. The argument about finding liability on the common law and securities fraud claims cannot be considered by the Court since the jury found the plaintiffs proved no damages and the Court awarded judgment to the defendants on those claims."
"The Court declines to reinstate the award of punitive damages because the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages under Virginia law."
"III. CONCLUSION
Because the evidence at trial did not justify an award of punitive damages, or a reasonable jury could not have returned an
award of punitive damages, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court will not reinstate the punitive damages award."
Res
