Replies to post #241825 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[nicmar]

"IDCC has with that 8K left themselves kind of vulnerable in my opinion.

By golly, I'd sue em myself Mickey, but I've got all my money and then some tied up in their darned stock. How about you doing it and report back. You could sell the car and I and others would give you a whole bunch of moral support.

The only plausible reason I have heard was a cover for somebody's wink & nod or some other such nonsense. What a crock of an 8K. I spent and lost a little money on that 8K by getting into margin and then selling lower to get out of it and that's a fact. I believed them. It would be at the least interesting why that 8K was ever issued. I don't think anyone really has a clue.

Ahhh!!! I guess forget it and save your money for some more calls. As you said It's still a screaming buy.... I think. .. mo.. nic

[olddog967]

mickey: The 8-K you are referring to was filed under Item 8.01 Other Events, and was titled “Nokia Updates”. The filing had two items., the first being the sentence you are concerned about “ Nokia Corporation and InterDigital are in settlement discussions and have made substantial progress towards resolution of all disputes between them.”; and the second being information regarding Nokia’s filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to preliminarily enjoin IDCC from proceeding against Nokia in the ITC investigation.

As I previously wrote, filings under Item 8.01 are not mandatory. The filing is at the filer’s option. The following are the rules for Item 8.01;

“Item 8.01 Other Events.
The registrant may, at its option, disclose under this Item 8.01 any events, with respect to which information is not otherwise called for by this form, that the registrant deems of importance to security holders. The registrant may, at its option, file a report under this Item 8.01 disclosing the nonpublic information required to be disclosed by Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100 through 243.103).”

Some posters believe that the item about settlement discussions was filed because of the second part of the rule i.e. Regulation FD: however, since IDCC did not provide any further explanation, we do not know whether the filing was just considered to be “ of importance to security holders’, or whether it was FD related.