The class has not been certified, according to the story, nor that this firm will be appointed lead counsel if that certification occurs. Based on the allegations, it will likely get certified. But lawyers do run to securities controversies for nuisance settlements. The number of suits filed and the number of law firms involved do provide a nice opportunity for easy attorney's fees that net the victims very little money.
Again, the presence of lawsuits, lots of them, does not equal smoke. I don't need to wait for the judge's ruling. It won't get that far. I buy SLW and physical silver based on supply shortage, industrial demand and the weak dollar.
Someone needs to be the skeptic. Aren't you the one that applauds S_H_R for bringing another view? I'm being skeptical about the prospects of the filing of this suit and its effect on the price of silver. That's not a valid criticism why?
There is a serious lack of reading comprehension in the reading of posts and criticism that may appear under a particular heading in a thread.
If someone posts a subject heading like "SILVER TO GO MUCH HIGHER", you may agree with that premise, but if you include a link to a questionable source or a factor that may have no impact at all, you aren't attacking the premise.
Comparison time: in elementary school, you might get a "C" on a math test and come up with all the right answers. But the answer doesn't matter, alone. You have to show your work. If you post "silver will go up" because a lawsuit was filed, then you're getting a "C". That's not tenable support for that premise.
Is there manipulation in the futures market? Seems to be. What's the extent of the manipulation? Been discussed over-and-over again: it is apparently substantial. Will this crush the manipulators? debatable, these lawyers and other experts are trying to push that agenda. If they are successful in squeezing the shorts, will it cause silver to go up? Probably. Will that new, lofty price be sustainable without supply shortages, industrial demand and dollar weakness? Probably not, as those factors are the most important IMO.
You're post is equally flawed. It's an easy shot to be the skeptic--it has the veneer of sounding smart in a sea of circumstancial notional conjecture without some autoritarian telling you how to think and what to do. Substituting the court for a priesthood is not my idea of critical dialectic in action.
Viewing the number of nuisance suits to be settled by harassing the defendant with outlandish claims has two hurdles you fail to mention. The first really is--, such suits are usually small potatoes generally promulgated in small communities by single or at best double partnered offices.
"This" is not one of "those". It is large, well publicized. It is not a nuisance suit, because there is no point to one.
Second, you cannot tell how many have their hands in this litiginous pot, in that one firm takes senior role and lion's share, while others wait for scraps based on referring clients.
Simple scrolling through youtube finds second level phantom trades, and the industry has a history of failing to make naked shorts settle in accordance with the rules on ALL stocks. Add program trading in accordance with robotic buy sell programs, and you have a thumb on the roulette wheel.
If you don't think so, I urge you to sell your stock now and wait for the court decision.
We'll keep the light on for you.
You cannot hope to make a profit by simple research especially at these levels, you have to know how the large traders game the system and swim with those sharks.
The ONLY reason you might have validity in dismissing the issues involved with participating in influencing the price of silver, is that the little guys are not in the game yet except for the few who refuse to be turtles, or know that the dollar saved now better be risked to make ten down the road or you run out of money when you need it.
"This is a seriously naive post"
Nope, you're just a seriously stupid ahole.
Listen ahole, if you want to go on Westlaw, feel free, but don't tell me what to do.
Groupthink is better than no-think, which is what you apparently engage in.
Absolutely agree Hans.
And, 10 years ago when we were all admiring our numismatic collections, NOBODY bought because of some alleged conspiracy theory that included any banksters shorting the metals.
This is a relatively new addition to the game, one that can be cited in MANY a BB or penny stock story.
The old blame the short routine.
They even blame the short when the product has risen 800%!!!!!
This is a seriously naive post. "Big law office don't file frivolous suits." First, is this a "big law office"? Second, why don't you call westlaw, get a 10-day pass, and then see how many decisions exist for malicious prosecution filed by "big firms".
I'm challenging the validity of the information as a factor in the price of silver. It has none AS PROVEN YET. To get excited about lawsuits being filed shows you have no clue about the system.
The group think on this board is tiresome.
Oh really? Not even hoping that some of them get settled just because the respondent doesn't what to spend the time and expense fighting it?
Frivolous lawsuits happen all the time and you can always find a bloodsucker lawyer to take them. But don't get me wrong, I am in NO WAY commenting on these silver suits.