Heard investors that purchased stock during the period of the scandalous reporting quarters could auctually sue for any losses dated back to that period till now.Watch the drop in stock value as investors just sell now and sue for losses,not waiting for any upside relief.
Yes, and to reiterate rogerxavier's point that these companies are
( typically ) prepared insurance-wise to weather the storms that arise out of accounting fraud that is proven, therefore the impact to their bottom line is minimal to none. The payouts from class actions , as you stated, will be tip money for one lunch outing and that's about it, if that.
I'm no expert in this area , but since when has any company ever made common investor losses 100% whole , even after proof of intent to commit fraud and deceive ? You live with your losses or compensate on gains in new investments , I think , has always been the case in similar scenarios. Diamond will leave a trail of dead bodies in it wake , if it does not recover PPS to the specific investor's cost basis.
Please no bashing or flaming , if anyone replies.
risky - they only admitted that an error was made - don't recall seeing anything about liability or potential for liability
I did see where the fine reputable firm of D&T agreed with and signed off on the accounting of DMND - so it may very well be a grey area [you probably don't beleive this but there are grey areas] I would think D&T will try to defend their logic or be labled as incompetent
considering the way everything was handled by DMND I think they will move past this fairly quickly and there will be no new/related issues going forward
"ROGER,Are you saying this was un-intentional accounting errors?"
No I didn't say that and I already notice that you interpret posts to say what wasn't said by the original poster.
They company admitted the CEO and COO instigated or allowed this error. As far as I've read there is NO ADMISSION of liability on the company's part as in no systemic inflation of figures or hiding of deficits since the beginning of Mendes tenure. No consistent submission of wildly inaccurate financial statements.
The company can argue that those payments were actually mislabeled by the former management.That the term Momentum payments indicates they were advances on future payments but rather than prolonging the uncertainty they will restate them in the years they were paid,adjust the financials as necessary, apologize, revamp their procedures and move on. Such a defense would mitigate the company's perceived liability.
Whether any or all of the cases will be allowed will be determined by the courts.
Spending tens of millions to reduce any payments by hundreds of millions and pushing the time and terms of the settlements out to a future in which the company will be less vulnerable seems like a sound strategy to me.
You are also ignoring the Directors and Officers insurance which DMND bought to cover just this type of event so any settlements by the company will be reduced or not come out of the company's treasury at all.
We don't know how many lawsuits there will be nor the total requested amounts to make the plaintiffs whole. Yet you have the company shelling out half a billion dollars now and selling off assets to do so.This is nowhere close to happening.
You have constructed a hysterical hypothetical situation which benefits your agenda and are trying to pass it off as fact.