None of that stuff comes close. And again, since the Court oversaw everything, one would have to demonstrate that PwC withheld or misrepresented material information to the Court. That is a high bar to get over.
The issue with the "former PwC employee" is an interesting one. But that in and of itself is meaningless, one would have to be able to demonstrate some malfeasance related to that relationship.
But here's the thing...even if one could demonstrate that, it is unlikely the common shareholders would see anything since the amount of money one would have to be talking about would have to be in the many tens of millions before the common shareholders could be considered as having a "stake" in the recovery.
And if it was that amount of money, then it would be highly likely the secured (those getting only partial recovery) AND unsecured creditors (not getting any recovery) would be lining up to sue well ahead of any common shareholders. Their claims would sit in front of any common shareholder claim under any scenario.
"Harsh reality is always better than false hope"
