Nerd, I finally had a chance to read her entire opinions. You say that the Judge stated in the decision that suffcient evidence was not presented for the decision she made. Actually there was no implicity in her opinions. She indeed found insufficiant evidence to continue actions from the parties dismissed but plainly stated that as to Huff that the letter of the law had been sufficiantly satisfied, with that said she didn't mean anything other than the plaintiffs have satisfied the law and that's it. It wasn't about wrong or right at all just satisfaction of law.
Not saying you're wrong, it does open up some more doors to stomp Huff's head in the dirt (makes me happy). You know my position with Huff.
Regardless, this suit is a waste of time and resources for everyone involved except the stinking attorneys.
Remember that overlypromotional and hype statements from individuals and companies are illegal. If you feel investors are being "rooked" contact the SEC.
