I have not read their press release, can't find it anywhere. Somewhat suspect that they are coming public with a buy recommendation just before earnings. PERHAPS they want to mnake a name for themselves, knowing maybe that SWHC is a good takeover candidate.
Lake Street Capital Markets has prepared this report in accordance with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Exchange Act Rule 606 that requires broker/dealers to make public, quarterly reports containing certain information on their order routing practices. The report provides information on the routing of "non-directed orders" which is generally defined as any order that the client has not specifically instructed to be routed to a particular venue for execution.
"........................... increase in production that the offering funded."
The most idiotic statement posted on this board in some time. The company has not undertaken any sort of capital raise to fund growth. The company has generated its own cash for growth purposes.
Recent article might suggest not. They are constructing a plant in Arkansas vs Colorado.... Confusing signal from FGI... Doubting they are selling anymore, but they have taken over the WIMP AWARD from SWHC.
Always be careful executing the pile driver. The recipient usually gets cervical damage
Da revenuers are not going to like you taking such a big tax loss on your short position. Better cover. Pretty soon the short ones are going to start bidding swhc up just like they did (and currently are doing) with rgr.
See you at $15 suckah.
This explains the high short interest. The shorts are cooked. The shorts are worried. Zacks predicts price appreciation in the coming weeks. Their timeframe, not mine.
See prior definition of nominal defendant. This last suit is going to go away fast, NOW.
Keep talking about this topic. The pps took off yesterday as WE shined the lite of day on your false allegations.
Its becoming obvious what will happen here.
Chickenfeed. Compared to how you illustrated it.
Lawyers love chickenfeed, because in the grand scheme of things, the resolution of these matters for chickenfeed is good for the shareholders, ie, WE.
Nominal defendants have no responsibility, no fault and no right to recovery," according to U.S. Legal Definitions. This is the complete opposite of and not to be confused with a necessary party who will be directly affected by a lawsuit.
As seen in the most recently settled lawsuit, with swhc as nominal defendant, swhc didn't pay anything. The settlement involved the return of options, and amendment of the bylaws. As swhc is not being sued in the last derivative matter, they are only a defendant, they won't get judgment entered against them either.
What does nominal defendant mean, after all?
SWHC won't pay for acts of individuals. Perhaps they will look to the D&O policy, AT WORST.
As to other legal costs - already expended and expenses.... SWHC is simply trying to recoup costs, no further downside in this
3:11-cv-30009-MAP Sarnacki v. Golden
Dat: afraid to put down the case number as the light of day will shine on his disingenuous disclosures.
Smith & Wesson was named a nominal defendant.... The suit was rightfully against the company managers as individuals. The corporation name included as a matter of course.