edit: no problem Jay
1) so it would seem.
2) you would hafta ask Judge Ponsor.
3) yes, but i doubt the court would do so sua sponte (on its own initiative). it also seems highly premature at this point where there has been no fact finding yet or any sort of hearing/s & i don't think Wave filed a motion to dismiss (rule 12(b)(6)).
even if they did move for dismissal, i don't see what their grounds would be b/c the complaints seem to sufficiently allege valid claims and articulate causes of action. fwiw, dismissals aren't all that common to my knowledge.
4) as tempting as it may be, i will refrain from making any pun regarding the "hold up" remark. certification can be akin to "rubber stamp" where there is no disagreement regarding who will be the lead plaintiff/s. not the case here -- at least two groups wrangling over who will get that status.
not sure i agree w/you on the "no news is good news" theorem (but i'm also a recovering wavaholic). it suggests to me that you can prolly expect Wave to be a defendant for quite some time (which obviously cannot be good for business) & in the event the SEC releases any adverse findings, the procedural delays in the civil matter will have been an advantage to the claimants as any such SEC determination/s will presumably be folded into the class actions and derivative claims pleadings by amendment.
if the SEC does find insider trading, Wave's goose is cooked in the civil matters IMO.
i suspect that there will be a determination that certain individuals violated insider trading laws, with fines & disgorgement being the most likely minimum results.
100% JMO.
good luck!
edit: SO Doma, i was WRONG! the "office" lease is three years longer than i guessed. where did you learn that they were able to break the lease? was it the same source as scorpioesq's $5M phantom contract?
AI
