words, to "err on the side of caution" in a circumstance where there is doubt as to whether a party has been informed of the information required by the "Revised Guidelines."
But as the court has altered the guidelines to require a discussion of the model only when its origin or von Pentz's prior use of it is discussed or asked about, it seems unlikely that this discussion will be frequent with the same client. And if a client is so concerned with the model and its origins that he or she repeatedly wants to discuss it with a Columbia Partners' employee, there may well be good reason to require the repeated disclosure of Tasho and Dyhouse and their respective roles in creating the model. The request to limit such disclosures only to people who have already been informed will thus be denied.
3. Columbia Partners' proposed language would revise the "Revised Guidelines" to state that Tasho and Dyhouse contributed certain refinements to the model "while they were at RIMCO." Plaintiff fears that defendant would use this added language as a ruse to suggest that Tasho and Dyhouse were at RIMCO but are no longer at RIMCO. Tasho and Dyhouse are currently at RIMCO. Both had left to go elsewhere, but returned after von Pentz's departure. The court agrees that the proposed wording suggests that Tasho and Dyhouse are no longer at RIMCO, even though they are. As defendant's proposed amendment would be misleading, it is therefore denied by the court.
4. Finally, RIMCO objects to Columbia Partners' desire to now allow the disclosures about the computer model to be made "either orally or in writing." RIMCO believes that this will allow defendant to skirt the requirement that face-to-face presentations be made before RIMCO's record is discussed, and that there would be no opportunity for follow-up questions by prospective clients.
Defendant, however, finds this argument off the mark, because face-to-face presentations will still be required, giving prospective clients an opportunity for follow-up questions.
The court does not accept defendant's explanation for this change in the guidelines. If Columbia Partners makes an oral presentation discussing the origins of the model, etc. as described above, it must orally mention Tasho and Dyhouse. Otherwise, it could make an entire presentation, ignoring these two contributors to the model, and bury some information in an accompanying pamphlet which it would then hand to the client after the presentation.
Therefore, the court will deny Columbia Partner's request to allow for written as opposed to oral disclosures.
For the reasons stated above, Columbia Partners' petition for clarification of injunction and to revise its guidelines for presentations will be granted in part and denied in part.
A separate order shall issue this date.
Royce C. Lamberth
United States District Judge
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion and in conjunction with the injunction entered on May 12, 1997, it is hereby ORDERED
that defendant Columbia Investment Partners, L.L.C.'s ("Columbia Partners") petition for clarification of injunction and to revise its guidelines for presentations is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further ORDERED
that the injunction entered on May 12, 1997 which, among other things, enjoined Columbia Partners to follow its "Revised Guidelines for Presentations," is hereby clarified so as to forbid Columbia Partners from the practice of "linking" Columbia its record to that of RIMCO with respect to information it provides to consultants and professional databases, as outlined in the memorandum opinion of May 12, 1997, but not to forbid private consultants, on their own personal databases, from representing this information in any manner they believe helpful, provided Columbia Partners has made all required disclosures and corrections. Columbia Partners need not ask consultants to remove all references to the RIMCO equity performance record even if that consultant has chosen to portray this information in his or her own internal database in a manner which "links" performance records. Columbia Partners does have an affirmative duty to correct improperly linked data when requested for verification by consultants, as outlined in the accompanying memorandum opinion; and it is further ORDERED
that Columbia Partners is hereby ENJOINED to follow its "Revised Guidelines for Presentations," as amended pursuant to the accompanying memorandum opinion, and as attached hereto as Appendix A.
Royce C. Lamberth
United States District Judge
To ORDER of August 11, 1997 in Civil Action No. 96-0014.
"Amended Revised Guidelines for Presentations"
1. Former employment status and titles of CP personnel
You may say the following about Mr. von Pentz and the other RIMCO employees (other than Messrs. Tasho & Dyhouse).
a. Mr. von Pentz was employed by RIMCO from June 1989 until September 1995. While there, he held a number of positions, including Director of Equity Research and Strategy, Chief Investment Officer, Chairman, and Executive Director. He was Chief Investment Officer of RIMCO from October 1989 until September 1995.
b. The whole RIMCO equity research department as it was constituted in September 1995 is now at Columbia Partners;