|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Kim:
Nice thoughtful post.
Best,
Tim Morge
KIMBOLEGSA@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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.
|