Please help me understand why the plaintiffs would have wanted (or more importantly, deserved) more shares if the stock price had been higher. I'm not arguing with you, as I have no idea, but here's my thought process: The CA was filed by investors who held shares during a defined period of time. They claim that they/we were misled by SEVU, and lost money as a result. The potential for gain can't be determined, but the amount lost can be identified to the penny. I sincerely doubt the courts or an arbitrator would award them lost profits, but if the plaintiffs prevail, they should expect some percentage of their losses. Apparently the parties have agreed to settle by issuing stock. If the settlement is 6M shares, we're talking about $780K at thirteen cents/share. If SEVU could have announced news that may have raised the price, the amount of settlement wouldn't have changed, but if the stock price was twenty-six cents, for example, the settlement could have been only 3M shares. I would also think that it may have helped SEVU's case if they could demonstrate that the rosy projections (for which they're being sued) are finally happening, so perhaps SEVU only mislead us with timing, but not about sales potential. That kind of information may have had the potential to reduce the settlement and possibly even enable SEVU to prevail. That's why I believe that if they had anything newsworthy, they would have reported it.
It may all be moot at this point. Regardless of the reasons, no significant sales or relationships have been reported to date. I still believe that's probably because the company couldn't secure financing to build and sell products until the CA was settled. Regardless of how they got to where they are today, the suit had to be settled so they can move forward. Let's hope they sell at Costco. That would make it much easier to market them to other retailers.
