stock.., Well, just saying... so far, most paranoid post of the day. This type of information has no place in a cc, IMO. If it was premature, found to be in error in any possible way, or dismissed due to absence of evidence, how many more lawsuits against Spectrum would we see? Bet you're a great poker player.
Putting the disclosure under "other matters or in footnote" may be considered "tucking it away". SPPI put the disclosure in the "legal issues" section. Adam is not a journalist, he is a blogger with an agenda. When is the last time he said anything positive about Spectrum? Getting paid to bash. Now that's a great gig.
It is a Q1 2013 quarterly earnings call. It would have been completely inappropriate to discuss it and it was properly disclosed in the 10-Q where it should be disclosed.
I am actually quite happy the SEC is taking a look at this as they will necessarily investigate the trading and manipulation of the stock by the short interest too in light of any wilflull and intentional collusion with the Fusilev wholesalers and/or other manipulation. This could be the absolute best result for SPPI.