okay, spin, here's what I've found so far on Shiva... couldn't you just tell us? Snackman goes out on a limb to defend you, with the implausible and risible idea that you be placed on the BOD, and you're still such an insufferable **** that you can't just post what it is exactly about the Shiva situation that would mirror Wave's.
Apparently a class action law suit was filed against them in California because they didn't disclose conditions that caused net earnings to nosedive? What does this have to do with Wave?
I also found this:
"Lirette v. Shiva Corporation.48 In this class action filed against Shiva Corporation (NASD: SHVA), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a very restrictive interpretation of the "all facts" requirement. The opinion is significant because the complaint in Lirette was similar in structure to many other class actions complaints, i.e., it asserted generally in a single paragraph that all of the allegations in the complaint were based either on "information and belief" or "investigation by plaintiffs' counsel." The court found that this pleading tactic utterly failed to comply with the "all facts" requirement because it did not specify which allegations derived from which sources.
To rectify their pleading, the court ordered plaintiffs to file a supplement to the complaint that specifies "as to each particular allegation (i.e., every sentence or clause separated by a common or a conjunction), whether that allegation is made upon information and belief or is supported by some document or statement on personal knowledge by a potential witness." Unlike other early interpretations of the "all facts" requirement, however, the court did not require plaintiffs to reveal the identities of their sources. Consequently, the action appears to have less of a chilling effect on whistle-blowers who may be aware of securities law violations but leery of coming forward with that information."
