No retail investors will sue WCVC (and win) since the return isn't there.
Nixon's decisions to fund himself with toxic lenders was poor judgment, but no investors had to buy the stock to make money for those lenders and anyone who shorted the stock knowing toxic lending only means the stock goes down.
"I didn't read the filings or didn't understand them" isn't a valid legal basis for suing a company that used toxic lenders.
What we don't know is what Hamilton -- the anti-stock-fraud, anti-toxic-finance, anti-everything-bad-about-penny-stock-abuse lawyer-- is doing for Nixon.
Maybe lawsuits can be or have been filed in Nixon's favor to go after the toxic lenders. Since toxic lenders get paid back by exercising convertible share options and then selling them, some of them have been successfully targeted as unregistered dealers.
Market makers who short a stock on the expectation of toxic lenders exercising their options can get punished by share cancellations if those toxic deals are canceled, perhaps replaced by private funding.
I'm not saying I know any of the above will happen, or are even possible, but these scenarios were discussed by Mark Basile in that interview he did that was linked to on his Twitter page.
