From Shkreli biographical timeline
"2011: In 2011, Shkreli filed requests with the FDA to reject a new cancer diagnostic device from Navidea Biopharmaceuticals and an inhalable insulin therapy from MannKind Corporation while publicly short-selling both companies' stocks, the values of which dropped after Shkreli's interventions." http://www.bing.com/search?q=martin+shkreli&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&refig=0552fd22c524450b9ee2717275462809&qs=HS&pq=martin&sc=8-6&sp=1&cvid=0552fd22c524450b9ee2717275462809
Like to think otherwise, but it would seem that the SEC is not immune to being used as a tool of market manipulation as per the above.
Was thinking about AVXL not being on the list someone posted of Shkreli related SEC supeona information. Some of us were hoping the SEC was investigating attacks on AVXL stock as being the reason for the supeona requesting information from AVXL.
We probably shouldn't be too surprised if it turns out that some sort of "anonymous tip" was sent to bait the SEC into an obligaory inquiry via supeona of AVXL. Then, that would have provided enough of a pretext for the first "ambulance chaser" to be ushered in. The others piling in, like this latest, are just along for the ride, but, nevertheless, all the insinuation laden announcements have served to suppress the share price by discouraging investment. One could probably indentify several parties that benefit from obstacles being thrown in the company's path, although short sellers would be at the top of the list.
If it turns out that the SEC has been manipulated to spur a negative propaganda campaign, essentially free negative publicity to artificially suppress the share price, then whoever filed the false complaint might held accountable, depending how anonymous they were and whether the SEC would be ticked off at being used in such a manner.
re:"Is it possible to sue these ambulance chasers? "
The announcements, though laden with damaging insinuation, are cunningly worded to preclude that. They are, after all, lawyers. So, probably not, in the sense of it likely being rather futile.
It's the insidious implication of presumed guilt in the ads that cause the most damage to the investor "good will" portion of the company's valuation. Although these firms are oppurtunistic in the manner of proverbial "amulance chasers", it is not necessary for them to issue media pronouncements to solicit potencial class action clients, because they already know who to mail the plaintiff request letters out to, via information held by the shareholders' stock brokers. Since there is a legal precedent for goverment to ban harmful tobacco and alchoholic beverage ads, it could be argued that a certain class of legal services advertising that harms the financial health of the litigation target company, and by extension, cause financial damage to current shareholders in that company, should be similarly banned.