OBVIOUSLY what I am saying is if one judge found no grounds whatsoever for bad faith against ZN, it is less likely that ANY other governing body will find bad faith.
Bad faith covers a spectrum from less than criminal to sometimes criminal. From the Delaware judges opinion ZN was not found to have even violated the less than criminal aspect of the spectrum.
Although the Dallas case is not in the same jurisdiction as the Delaware case and thus the Dallas judge is not bound by the Delaware result,still the Delaware judges opinion can be persuasive on other jurisdictions,especially to the extent the cases are dealing with the same facts -as they should be-otherwise the lawyers in one or more of the cases are not doing their job.
Now the sec under unconstitutional orders had been a loose canon from ca 2009 to ???? but as long as they are following the rule of law its unbelievable that they could find any criminal intent against ZN,either individually or especially corporately,and the only verdict that will legally slow ZN down is a strong corporate verdict of strong intentionality,something extremely unlikely ,especially given the lack of bad faith noted by the Delaware judge and the still awaiting to my knowledge pendency of ZN's Dallas motion for summary dismissal of the Texas case,since the judge in that case had plenty of opportunity to dismiss ZN's motion but did not and to my knowledge still has not.
ZN's TX motion to dismiss must have scared plaintiffs badly because TX plaintiffs filed an over 35 pp rebuttal,for which they were warned by the TX court exceeded the 35 pp limit allowed.
These favorable for ZN legal tidings have mysteriously been largely ignored by this board.
As I said before-no finding of criminal intent can be found against ZN either corporately or individually, as there was none, as noted by the Delaware judge.
So the most the sec can do,especially if they are motivated to justify their investigation,is to find a civil violation individually against one or possibly 2 of ZN's many directors or officers,especially those who no longer hold a ZN office,which would have little to no effect on ZN.
In another stock during the unconstitutional wild west era the SEC found criminal intent against the CEO and the book was thrown against the CEO but the judge cleared the company of any charges. And as I've noted any CEO to be charged would be the CEO'S at the time in question, who no longer are officers or directors of ZN.
Imo. Do your dd before investing. I'm not a financial adviser nor compensated for my posts. They don't believe what they say, so why should you?
