OCA (6)
Question
by: tanqueray_tonic 08/31/05 01:07 am
Msg: 37511 of 37781
What is your opinion on the summary judgement in California finding that the OCA contract violates the business and professions code?
Or, perhaps you would like to impress us with your analysis of the ND Texas case that found that the OCA contract violated the Texas Dental Practices Act? Do you think that the judge in the current set of suits in Federal Court in Texas will follow that case?
Or, what do you think of the Hobson case where the court found that OCA breached the contract when they "misjudged" the extra money that they applied to corporate expenses, above and beyond?
Or, what do you think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Hobson was awarded for attorney's fees? What chances do you see for that being vacated.
Just want to tell you, my "chfriend", there are a lot of things that you casually overlook in your analysis. Would you not agree that your pithy post detailing the "pay down" does not reflect any of those salient points?
>>I have spent some time in the past few weeks
>>in digesting OCA's financials
Are you also going to spend some time digesting news accounts of the opening of the 2004 NFL season as well, since your financial news is that old as well? Perhaps you may want to look into the upcoming Kerry-Bush election as well, especially since you are so keen on researchin year old facts.....
Btw, what do you think of the company's inability to put out numbers for a year? Do you find that as impressive as I do? Do you realize that every number and fact that you quoted is at least a year old?
Response
by: chfriend03 08/31/05 01:26 am
Msg: 37513 of 37781
Indeed, I am old style investor, and would go back to a few years before making a judgement. I do not invest in a company based on a few months' history.
I read all these judgements you referred to. My opinion is the same: the lawsuits have a few aftershocks. No big deal. Most of these who do not like to stay as OCA affiliate have by now become innactive with OCA. It is crowd mentality: if many file lawsuits then you would file too. A few more affiliates may want to buy out or to settle, then they would pay back the cash they received.
The States in which judges have ruled OCA's agreements ilegal are very very few. And as the lawsuits settled in May 2005, you will probably not hear too many more.
The case vs. Hobson is ended. OCA now settles lawsuits instead. Didn't we all know that it has settled with 60 affiliates in MAY 2005? I believe that OCA should have taken the buy-out offer by the doctor instead of pushing for the extreme in the case you mentioned.
My opinion is that, it is OK to make some mistakes, but it is not OK if one cannot learn from its mistakes. OCA suffered in courts due to a few problems, but it has corrected these problems.
What I pay attention here is, whether there is any value in OCA stock, and I have stated my opinion.
(By the way, most of these "innactive" affiliates were already innactive in 2001 and 2002.)
YOu might bring a few more cases of "innactive affiliates" or new lawsuits, but you will not see a substantial number of these. That will be the case.
by: tanqueray_tonic 08/31/05 01:07 am
Msg: 37511 of 37781
What is your opinion on the summary judgement in California finding that the OCA contract violates the business and professions code?
Or, perhaps you would like to impress us with your analysis of the ND Texas case that found that the OCA contract violated the Texas Dental Practices Act? Do you think that the judge in the current set of suits in Federal Court in Texas will follow that case?
Or, what do you think of the Hobson case where the court found that OCA breached the contract when they "misjudged" the extra money that they applied to corporate expenses, above and beyond?
Or, what do you think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Hobson was awarded for attorney's fees? What chances do you see for that being vacated.
Just want to tell you, my "chfriend", there are a lot of things that you casually overlook in your analysis. Would you not agree that your pithy post detailing the "pay down" does not reflect any of those salient points?
>>I have spent some time in the past few weeks
>>in digesting OCA's financials
Are you also going to spend some time digesting news accounts of the opening of the 2004 NFL season as well, since your financial news is that old as well? Perhaps you may want to look into the upcoming Kerry-Bush election as well, especially since you are so keen on researchin year old facts.....
Btw, what do you think of the company's inability to put out numbers for a year? Do you find that as impressive as I do? Do you realize that every number and fact that you quoted is at least a year old?
Response
by: chfriend03 08/31/05 01:26 am
Msg: 37513 of 37781
Indeed, I am old style investor, and would go back to a few years before making a judgement. I do not invest in a company based on a few months' history.
I read all these judgements you referred to. My opinion is the same: the lawsuits have a few aftershocks. No big deal. Most of these who do not like to stay as OCA affiliate have by now become innactive with OCA. It is crowd mentality: if many file lawsuits then you would file too. A few more affiliates may want to buy out or to settle, then they would pay back the cash they received.
The States in which judges have ruled OCA's agreements ilegal are very very few. And as the lawsuits settled in May 2005, you will probably not hear too many more.
The case vs. Hobson is ended. OCA now settles lawsuits instead. Didn't we all know that it has settled with 60 affiliates in MAY 2005? I believe that OCA should have taken the buy-out offer by the doctor instead of pushing for the extreme in the case you mentioned.
My opinion is that, it is OK to make some mistakes, but it is not OK if one cannot learn from its mistakes. OCA suffered in courts due to a few problems, but it has corrected these problems.
What I pay attention here is, whether there is any value in OCA stock, and I have stated my opinion.
(By the way, most of these "innactive" affiliates were already innactive in 2001 and 2002.)
YOu might bring a few more cases of "innactive affiliates" or new lawsuits, but you will not see a substantial number of these. That will be the case.
posted by jajabin at 3:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home