Wazoo. I hesitate to post this message for obvious reasons. But after reading Ericy's 3Q report, I contacted PWC by email in the Fall of 2000, about Ericy's failure to provide a provision for the IDCC litigation. I also passed on the sentiments of message board members that we were especially incensed that Ericy failed to make any mention of the IDCC litigation, even though it was then about 7 years old, and was obviously no nuisance suit.
The email was quite long and contained all the litigation history of Ericy, including Ericy's loss in Sweden, IDCC's victory in Germany, the NOK agreement, reaffirmation of patents, and the usual stuff. Frankly, I didn't think they'd give me the time of day, and didn't make a copy for myself.
Within two days, I received a call from an attorney at PWC's home office. He wanted to acknowledge receipt of the email, and told me they would look into the matter. When I asked a few questions, he became annoyed, and said he could say nothing further.
When the 4Q report came out, I read it carefully, and noticed the first reference to "patent litigation" exposure (without naming IDCC), and an increase in "provisions".
My email may have had nothing to do with Ericy/PWC's actions, but PWC will no longer accept emails about its clients on its website..
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
