InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 23
Posts 336
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/10/2010

Re: jaxstraw post# 211807

Thursday, 01/24/2013 11:41:34 PM

Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:41:34 PM

Post# of 312016
No, this is so false on so many levels.

If Baldwin takes this to court, and does not settle, Bordynuik will practically be forced to admit on an open stand that the SEC allegations are true. (...and the settlement explicitly states that Double Jeopardy can not be used as a defense to not testify either).



^ The agreement does say this at all, not even remotely. It could not be any clearer that it does not affect Bordynuik's testimonial obligations (i.e., speak the truth) or his right to take legal or factual positions in any non-SEC litigation. (see paragraph 11 of the consent).

Or the SEC voids the settlement.



^ How do you suggest that is possible? One party to a settlement cannot just void it at whim. Absurd.

Enter Derivative suit....

The lawyers for the Plaintiffs in the Derivative suit now have Bordynuik publicly admitting the charges ( that track the SEC charges) are true.

They will no doubt use that information and the outcome would be pretty easy to predict.



^ Those lawyers have nothing of the sort, and my guess is that they will not even attempt to make such contention. Both the consent and the proposed judgement expressly acknowledge that Bordynuik does not admit the allegations. It is a settlement, period. It is elementary that a settlement is inadmissible in evidence when offered as an admission of liability.