Talbot Smith Update, page-17

These type of cliché responses remind me of 'Groundhog Day' and I didn't particularly enjoy that movie - too predictable I reckon, Brian - but thanks for the compliment - there's a first time for everything regardless of whether you believe I'm a native inhabitant of the planet Mars, or made a simple spelling error. I will confess though that there was actually a time when I thought playing the 'decent guy' and contributing research on some of the stocks that I didn't own was actually a good thing, but believe me, it's not worth the time nor energy.

Anyway, enough about me - I think the average person gets the point - no need to keep distracting people from floyds original thread topic...

Common TDA, you're smarter than that.

The defendants have been ordered to pay attorney costs because they have made the pre-trial proceedings "unnecessarily combative and prolonged". After defying the confidentiality orders pertaining to the recordings the plaintiff then moved to allow this evidence to be made available to the public (ie this means you and other UNS shareholders) however the defendants immediately opposed this motion, arguing that the plaintiff’s proposal would be unduly burdensome because the defendants have produced thousands of pages of documents in reliance on the protective order.

Don't get me wrong, TDA - show me the bank account balance of each party and I can tell you right now who will prevail... it's not exactly rocket science when it comes to the judicial system in the US, or Australia for that matter.