You're right, I saw it coming. But, I'm not part of the lawsuit.
I think it is, mostly Robinhooders (or people new to stock buying). They are protected by SEC rules and regulations. I believe (I'm not a lawyer) there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to move forward with the case and the lawsuit will not be dismissed.
And, I still think, the likely outcome is a settlement without admitting guilt. It will be a matter of how much the lawsuit costs and who pays (D&O insurance or D&O and GNUS).
I believe it's more than just "overhype" and wrong "forward looking statements". I think it's a lot of "false or misleading statements" and "Fair Disclosure" violations. I still see GNUS/Andy making what I think are "false or misleading statements" , "Fair Disclosure" violations have dwindled down a lot after a lot of other law firms started showing up in the lawsuit.
Who benefited? Andy put $1 million into GNUS's convertible debt (was that in March?), and months later Andy has over 11 million more GNUS shares (now worth over $17 million).
Andy says he never sold any shares. How did that cashless warrant conversion work for Andy? Didn't the warrants convert and enough shares were sold to the company (GNUS) to pay for the conversion process? If, Andy has to pay taxes on the shares that paid for the conversion process, he sold shares (false/misleading statement to say he did not sell shares).
I'd say Andy benefited greatly, too.
I'd be careful trying to trade GNUS. I think it's a bad sign, Andy showing up on these "investor" web-shows on YouTube. It's what penny stock CEOs do when they want to sell stock. GNUS is also getting close to the authorized share limit, again.
