|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
In a message dated 98-07-15 15:43:35 EDT, Steven Buss wrote:
<< ............and discuss how NOT having a TS4 Y2K solution ACTUALLY does
harm to your ability to make a living as a trader RIGHT NOW. (In other words,
you're not screaming and waving your arms merely because of a potential impact
next year; instead your "trading for a living" is RIGHT NOW dependent on
having data on those outside contract months.) >>
Isn't the above THE key issue in determining whether a class-action lawsuit
would be warranted and/or effective?
I thought the following article entitled "The Year 2000 Millennium Bug and You
(And You Thought OJ's Trial was a Circus?)" on this subject might be of
interest to the list:
Consultant Warren S. Reid warns that there is an increasing trend toward
litigation as a "solution" to failed systems and failed systems projects. Up
until now, when there have been serious (and well-publicized) systems failures
such as Denver
Airport's Baggage Handling System, the solution typically was to fire the
individual or individuals considered responsible for the mess. However,
because of the KNOWN impact of the Y2K problem, Reid predicts new laws
and new interpretations of existing laws will be created to motivate and
punish those individuals and companies who are perceived as negligent
with regard to the Y2K situation.
Reid goes on to warn that:
"Because the Y2K bug is certain and material, and because it will
continue to be discussed more openly in daily press and magazines,
officers will not be able to hide behind the fact that this was beyond
their control or knowledge. In fact, even the 'excusable delay' clauses
typically found in contracts, which hold that corporations shall not be
responsible for failure or delay in performance of their obligations
under an agreement because of 'Acts of God' and due to causes beyond
their reasonable control, will provide no succor for directors.
The Y2K bug is known and will come, and doing nothing about it will not
be a defense, even if the argument is 'we were unable or didn't know how
bad it was going to be.'"
Despite Mr. Reid's concerns and warnings, I think Omega, like everyone else,
has underestimated the scope/size of the Y2K problem (probably one of the
reasons for the delay in providing the fix) but I'm also sure that they, like
everyone else, will eventually provide one.
To keep this in some sort of perspective, it should be noted that most, if not
all, US Banks are NOT yet Y2K compliant and, by law, they have until 12/31/98
to be so.
So the question becomes: Is it acceptable for the time frame within which
Omega
provides the fix to be at Omega's discretion? - OR do the users of their
systems have a reasonable claim expecting the fix to be available when
they (the users) need its functionality?
If customers are being impacted financially from the fix being unavailable (as
has been claimed by some on this list) then Omega may already be too late to
avoid litigation and/or mitigate their tardiness. If not, then they still have
time and maybe their reluctance to make statements about the fix is a
defensive strategy rather than an indication of their arrogance.
In any event, it appears that Omega, like the banks, have now reached the
"Warren
Beatty" stage of this dilemma - So many dates - So little time. :-))
Rgds,
Kim.
|