Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Who says that the fifth action was brought in an unlawful way? Leica, the defendant? Or has a court dismissed it with prejudice, so that it cannot be brought again in a 'lawful' way? On 8/5/05 9:55 AM, "Tim Rylance" <tkr@puffball.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Looks like the "Fat Lady" is warming up! > > But her appearance was cancelled at the last minute... > > http://www.vwd.de/vwd/news.htm?id=23912597&navi=home&sektion=adhoc > > "Leica Camera AG today has settled with mutual agreement four actions for > avoidance, brought by a.o. Leasing- und Handelsservice GmbH (Hettstadt), > EO Investors GmbH (Dusseldorf), which had been the subject of the ad > hoc announcement of 7/15/05. The remaining fifth action for avoidance > had been brought in an unlawful way." > > Tim Rylance <tkr@puffball.demon.co.uk> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information