[\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