1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sirius Stockholders Sue Sirius Management

Discussion in 'Sirius XM General Discussion' started by Dolly, Nov 3, 2008.

  1. Nov 3, 2008 #1 of 26
    Dolly

    Dolly Hall Of Fame

    2,179
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    Sirius Stockholders are after Sirius Management including, of course, Mel :lol: The group calls itself "Save Sirius". I wonder why no one tried to save XM :rolleyes:
    http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=143924&pt
    =todaynews
     
  2. Nov 3, 2008 #2 of 26
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    With the stock closing today at 32 CENTS per share, things will be much worse for shareholders if they DON'T do some kind of reverse split. If it stays below $1.00 for a certain period of time it will be delisted and probably drop still more.
     
  3. Nov 4, 2008 #3 of 26
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    NASDAQ's de-listing rules have been suspended for the time being. It's the sahre dilution, more than anything else, that is driving this suit.
     
  4. Nov 4, 2008 #4 of 26
    SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,052
    24
    Jan 20, 2003
    Shareholder Derivative Suit Abuse is second only to Class Action Abuse in our broken civil justice system. A stock goes down and some lawyer gets millions to go away, shareholders get a few cents each.
     
  5. Nov 4, 2008 #5 of 26
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Yep. Except in this case if the shareholders get a few cents they have doubled their investment. ;)
     
  6. Nov 4, 2008 #6 of 26
    Dolly

    Dolly Hall Of Fame

    2,179
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    +1 That was a good one :D
     
  7. Nov 4, 2008 #7 of 26
    Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,499
    2
    Mar 21, 2002
    And I thought the merger was supposed to make all the financial troubles all hunky doory.
     
  8. Nov 4, 2008 #8 of 26
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    It would have been much better if it hadn't taken well over a year for approvals (maybe).
     
  9. Nov 8, 2008 #9 of 26
    Dolly

    Dolly Hall Of Fame

    2,179
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    I think it would have been best if two drowning in red ink companies hadn't tried to grab on to each other to try to stay afloat. I mean if I'm drowning I would want to grab on to someone or something that wasn't also drowning. I guess that was too much for the Sat. Radio people to figure out :rolleyes:
     
  10. SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,052
    24
    Jan 20, 2003
    It may simply be that sat radio is a bad idea. It may simply be that there is not a break even amount of people willing to pay for it.

    It may also be that paying big money for "talent" and for "exclusive content" was not the right path.
     
  11. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    SamC: While I can certainly agree in principal to your 2nd point about overpaying for talent (witness Howard and the second NASCAR deal - XM passed on those specifically because the parties wanted too much money), I have to say that 19 million subscribers don't exactly scream to me "insufficient market"
     
  12. Dolly

    Dolly Hall Of Fame

    2,179
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    But I have always read that Sirius counted cars on car lots that had Sirius radios as being part of their subscribers! If those cars haven't been sold, then they don't have subscribers yet. Also what is the count now? I know I'm not the only subscriber they have lost.
     
  13. cweave02

    cweave02 W4SKO

    283
    0
    Oct 12, 2007
    Now, don't blame the lawyers! Those suits take a lot of time and work, for which the shareholders do not pay a penny, and the lawyers work for free until the contingency ship comes in. The shareholders have a lot of 'indignity' and want to sue to 'make a point' but do not want to pay for it by the hour or up front - so they are happy. What's the problem?
     
  14. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    The problem is that MANY "shareholder" lawsuits in the past have been found to have been built on fraud. The lawyers have friends buy shares and become the chief plaintiff, filing for class action based on friendly (to the lawyers) shareholders.
     
  15. Dolly

    Dolly Hall Of Fame

    2,179
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    Now Mr. King would lawyers really do that :D :lol:
     
  16. Ken S

    Ken S RIP

    6,201
    0
    Feb 12, 2007
    Yes, but no matter who the plaintiff is there is either a factually valid cause of action for the lawsuit or there isn't. Being the named plaintiff in a class action is no great joy and doesn't get them much of anything other than the agreed up on settlement.

    When you look at the state of our economy and to what degree some of these executives have destroyed huge companies...perhaps shareholders should be much, much more vigilant rather than less so?
     
  17. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Actually, what some lawyers have been doing is giving kickbacks to their buddies that they sign up as chief plaintiffs. In this case it is actually a "great joy" as they make quite a bit of money being professional plaintiffs. At least one large law firm that was responsible for a VERY large percentage of "shareholder" lawsuits was shut down for doing this. Often these cases are settled out of court just to get the lawyers to go away. It's simply extortion in MANY if not most cases.
     
  18. Ken S

    Ken S RIP

    6,201
    0
    Feb 12, 2007
    You're talking about Millberg, Weiss I assume. They were caught giving kickbacks and they were fined heavily ($75 million). They were not shutdown. Once again, the fact that some lawyers were greedy and broke the law doesn't speak at all to the validity of the claims they brought. Millberg, Weiss deserved the fine and I hope that the lawyers involved are disbarred. However, this makes them no better than some of inept or criminal executive scum that was running the companies they were suing.

    Oh and when someone settles a lawsuit for multiple millions of dollars and claims it is cheaper than going to court they're just lying. It's not...it is, however, cheaper than losing and that's what they expect will happen when they settle.

    Tell me...what should a shareholder do when the find out that the officers of a corporation they have invested in has taken actions that hurt the corporation, imperil the shareholder's investment and in many cases personally benefit those officers? Should they write a nasty letter? Show up at the shareholder's meeting and hold up a sign?
     
  19. BlueMonk

    BlueMonk Mentor

    38
    0
    Oct 29, 2007
    Wonder how many of those sueing really examined what the merger promised??? Cutting 22% of the workforce and consolidating back office is not going to make up for the years of overspending by both companies. Bankruptcy is my prediction.
     
  20. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milberg_Weiss
    Actually, they were shut down. It may not have been shut down by court order, but the result was the same. The name Milberg still exists, but it isn't the same company.

    I don't think the penalties were enough. I think that EVERYTHING that these crooks owned should have been taken away from them down to the shirts on their backs and then thrown in prison, owning only their orange jump suits. People like this make a mockery of the justice system.


    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGqfpC4ZjoAw&refer=home
     

Share This Page