This stuff drives me nuts....and it's not just a Rosen thing, it's a lawyer thing. And let me be the first to say that it's not significant:
"However, Plaintiff respond to Defendants’ baseless assertion that Plaintiffs Nicole O’Connell and Gary Zagami committed perjury in their PSLRA certifications. Both Plaintiffs O’Connell and Zagami reviewed and authorized the filing of a complaint and the amended complaint, respectively, prior to their filing."
Sullivan had tossed the perjury thing out, I suspect with no purpose other than to make a stink. But he had a point...both O and Z had filed certifications that said "Plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its filing." But they had signed those certifications on 8/6 and 8/7 respectively while the Complaint and Amended Complaint were filed on 9/11 and 9/24. It's virtually impossible for them to have "reviewed the complaint" at the time they signed their certifications.
There's a question in my mind as to whether this is as serious as it sounds and represents a flaw in the way Rosen handles lead plaintiff candidates or if its something that happens every day and Sullivan simply thought it might be in his interest to add to the things that make Rosen look bad, which it does seem to do.
But none of that is what drove me nuts. It was this sentence from the Rosen response:
"Both Plaintiffs O’Connell and Zagami reviewed and authorized the filing of a complaint and the amended complaint, respectively, prior to their filing."
That's not the issue at all! The issue isn't whether they reviewed the Complaints prior to the filing of the Complaints, it's whether they reviewed the Complaints prior to the signing of their certifications.
Lawyers.....
Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer.
It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.......Cuthbert J. Twillie
