[\disclaimer on: IANAL] [\second disclaimer on: playing 'devil's advocate'] as far as the legal beagles are concerned, just because PZN common price recovers to a reasonable level doesn't mean there was 'no harm done'. For anyone gullible enough to be conned into the 'lead plaintiff' position, I'm sure they were advised to sell near the bottom to 'lock in' their loss. Thus the 'harm' outlasts the bottoming out of the price. The premise of the lawsuits goes along these lines: the truth was withheld by responsible corporate officers from stockholders who had a right to know. They will attempt to prove that the deception (for such it apparently was) was done knowingly, with willful intent to deceive, and for the purpose of personal financial gain on the part of the individuals withholding the information. Having caused harm (financial loss) to the injured parties, they then compounded the damage by publicizing the problems. Once the negative information was made public, the class members were 'forced' to sell at a loss to preserve the remaining, albeit substantially diminished, capital assets.
[\second disclaimer off: playing 'devil's advocate']
Now, can any of these [pick your favorite demeaning adjective] sewers prove fraud or intent? Seems unlikely. Can they make themselves a nuisance, like some of the shills and bush-beaters who appear here periodically trying to stampede the unwary? Seems likely. They may not ultimately prevail, but they can certainly add aggravation and stress to an already difficult situation. Don't expect these flaw-suits to just disappear. If lack of merit were the operative criteria, civil dockets wouldn't be backed up seven years, as they are in most jurisdictions. [\disclaimer off: IANAL] The Majority Advocates Civil Kudos for Eliminating Ruction