re: mark being legally liable for loss-selling pre-RS,
possibly. esp if a judge decides mark willfully intended fraud with the RS.
but that seems less of a legal slam dunk
than mark proceeding with the RS and then diluting into the new 10x AS overhead,
thereby repeating the 2011 pattern,
unless mark does have compelling credible news of production progress to post
that backs up the biz motivations he filed with SEC in RS announcement.
ie: the key criteria for fraud seems to be willful deception,
not announcing a bad plan, then rescinding it.
if mark's friends/family had bought the cheap shares dumped in RS news
that would obviously raise legal questions.
but just posting bad news, then rescinding it,
doesn't seem a criteria for liability?
99.99% of all pinks are scams. Best to assume the other 0.01% are as well.