News Focus
News Focus
icon url

mickeybritt

12/20/08 9:43 AM

#242215 RE: nessco #242213

Nessco

Has all legal proceedings been dropped in the Samsung case as of yet? The answer is no. This is after a signed agreement as I understand it.

Mickey
icon url

rmarchma

12/20/08 10:17 AM

#242221 RE: nessco #242213

Nessco re disclosure of agreements you said:

...."Wouldn't any agreement implied or any other kind have to be disclosed."

Any legal "material definitive agreement" would have to be disclosed in an 8-K Item 1.01 within 4 business days after the agreement is entered into. Therefore not all agreements have to be disclosed, only those that are considered material. There could arise a question regarding when to disclose an agreement, with a contigency clause that had not yet been triggered, and it is the contingency clause which establishes the material amount. However, it appears that the SEC even wants these contingent material contracts disclosed. An excerpt from a legal article on Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement disclosures as follows:

...."An agreement may be "definitive" for the purposes of this rule, even if it is not definite that the underlying transactions provided for in such agreement will occur. That is, a definitive agreement may be subject to significant closing conditions. Nevertheless, if the agreement is material it must be timely reported on a Form 8-K, even though the obligations may be contingent on conditions that may be outside the reporting company's control.

Because the entry into material definitive agreements must be reported, even if conditional, when negotiating and documenting sensitive agreements, consideration should be given to the relationship between the time when the agreement is entered into and the types of conditions to which the agreement may be subject. For example, to avoid triggering a disclosure obligation at a stage that may be undesirable to the company, parties to contracts may find it desirable to limit conditions subsequent, such as board approval, by satisfying the subject matter of these conditions in advance of signing rather than making the contract contingent. Similarly, parties may prefer to complete all due diligence rather than making a contract subject to a due diligence closing condition in order to avoid a premature reporting obligation."

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1144601_ITM



icon url

nicmar

12/20/08 11:20 AM

#242226 RE: nessco #242213

Ness.. I don't know why everyone insists on an agreement. If so, it should be announced the next day after sammy signs. I also wonder why they have scheduled bearings before the idcc. If there's an agreement. Just what the heck are they going to talk about?

Btw... I totally agree with your pm of yesterday. He has so little to do and I believe he doesn't have the capacity to think much other than constant bs. .. mo. .. nic