SAIC Remiss to dismiss request#2 CITYTIME
OMG a much different slant in request#2 than request#1, according to the court records SAIC is saying we did not know, nor should or could have known, nor are responsible for the unknown actions non employees Denault and Bell. They acted alone, not exactly those words but that's the two sentence gist in the streets opinion. Heck, then SAIC sites all sorts of intertwining dates and law, its runs about 30 pages and repeats this theme throughout we just did know, we told our shareholders when we did and there is no a stated "real" proof. Most of procedural requests to dismiss in the initial request seems to have disappeared, I guess asking to get a majority to approve suing yourself is rather odd and the DPA is less mentioned in request #2. Denault's dismissal request is separate and stands on the stated fact he has no authority or position with shareholders thus not liable.
Not sure how one dismisses this honey when the criminal trial has not started and the arrests not complete. Scapegoat.
Question doesn't SAIC have an auditor?
Yes Deliotte and I want nyc gov to sue bummer key officials guilty in my opinion as well. ---
In my opinion SAIC clearly guilty and this went on before Denault was hired as Richard Valcich.
SAIC lawyers do "The Boesky Shuffle" but it is one big hustle --
Earnings report at 5pm tonight and stocks took a dip.
Come back and see very soon for hard news happiness for me is SAIC fails to get a dismissal.
