>Have you considered that they just might not be very good at scamming?
Ha, well, given how much fun it is to read about 'stupid
criminal tricks' in various places, and given that scammers
are bad guys to begin with, sure it's fair to ask: why
assume that they are good at being bad guys?
But the counter argument/possibility is that they are legit,
but just not very good at being legit. I was rather appalled
to learn just how hard it is to bring shareholder derivative
actions against corporate officers, because the law gives
a very heavy presumption in favor of the corporate officers.
Corporate officers (or, maybe, the Board of Directors) get
to decide whether a SDA is in the best interests of the
company. Guess how often those are given the green light.
The theory is that since business is a risk, the law wants
to encourage business risk taking, even by people who may
not be very good at it -- sort of a 'no pain, no gain'
theory. Although there may be little difference in the
end results when you compare blatant fraud with plain old
bad judgment, the law gives much greater protection to
bad judgment because it has to give people equal opportunity
to take business risks.
Sadly, at this moment, if the stock price is what convicts
PNMS of the truth, a good case for bad judgment seems like
it could be made. Sigh.
BUT, just to argue the other side again, the Exchange
really hasn't gotten going to prove its worth -- or
utter lack thereof -- beyond a shadow of a doubt.
AI
