"Constant contact" may be basis for DNDN suit.
Gold used the phrase often, then he surprised the analysts at the post letter call when he stated the contact had ceased a few months back. I don't have enough details in my head to know if he said it after the contact would have ended, but it could swing a jury with a lie by ommision argument.
I don't think the stock sell was that relavent. How many posters here have argued that investors were insane to be long post AC, why on earth is it not reasonable for the CEO to diverisify out? I wasn't nearly as concentradted in DNDN as Gold was, and I sure as hell got much of my ass out of town post AC. Plus, this information was public before the letter, so investors could have acted on it.
Regardless, I think this, and virtually all similar lawsuits, are without basis. Just a huge burden on society to make lawyers rich.
When I get my check for $15 2 years from now I will gladly donate it to anybody running for office on a judicial reform platform.
