Edited version
LITICATION CON-GAMING
The frivolous class actions lawsuits against ABAT may not be certified – not only because their causes of action are bogus, but because their plaintiffs are bogus also. The trial court must refuse to certify class actions in which the named plaintiffs are simply lending their names to suits controlled entirely by the class attorneys. See Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. Sup.Ct(Greenwood)2001 88 CA4th 572, 575, 105 CR2d 896, 899.
The law requires that the plaintiffs must be true representatives of the class, "VIGOROUSLY AND TENACIOUSLY PROTECTING THE CLASS INTEREST," but here the plaintiffs are just fakes, mere counsels' puppets, stooges acting on behalf of these law firms and the bear raiders and AGAINST the class interests, the interest of ABAT shareholders.
The ABAT shareholders here are, in fact, eager to sue the bear raiders, and they regard the suits against the ABAT as a part of the bear raid.
Being well informed about the ABAT shareholders' sentiment, about their outrage toward the bear raiders and all these class actions, I cannot imagine that any of these shareholders would want to participate in an action "against ABAT and on behalf of shareholders." For such action "against ABAT and on behalf of shareholders" is an absurd, as it is obvious that ABAT and its shareholders are victims of the very same shorts-conmen. It is obvious that these conmen confuse the situation, "muddy waters" and slander ABAT in a typical and routine manner of organized crime and only for a filthy profit, only to knock the stock down and to cover at a low shares price. But there is nothing in all their muddied waters but semantics, the Chinese-American regulatory discord, and typical shorts' mendacity.
The plaintiffs have to be informed by the recruiting them lawyers that they may bear the ENTIRE risk of paying costs if defendants would prevail, and that it could be very-very substantial. In fact, the plaintiffs may be framed even into paying the enormous attorney fees regardless the contingency fee agreement. I cannot imagine that any shareholder being aware of this and being familiar with the situation here would agree to be a plaintiff in such bogus, criminal suits. I believe that, if the plaintiffs here are not outright lawyers' stooges or coconspirators, which is most likely, then they are not informed or misinformed about their financial responsibility. In fact, several lawyers had attempted, and very-very eagerly, to mislead and defraud even me in this regard.
This makes me to think that these lawyers are just in con-gaming themselves, just a part of the same criminal establishment, and do not have even any actual plaintiffs at all.
As I already described on the Yahoo ABAT message board, I tried to initiate a shareholders class action against the bear raiders, and was looking for a lawyer. And a number of lawyers tried to recruit me instead as a potential lead plaintiff for a class action suit against ABAT(!!). They argued that in such actions it matters only what the action is ended for, and not what it is initiated for. A lead plaintiff, they argued, is in control of the litigation and can steer it in any direction he wants(!!). And so, they insisted, I should start the suit against ABAT and then turn it for ABAT and against the bear raiders. They were telling me also that all this would cost me nothing… Indeed, the litigation in this country are turning in con-gaming.
This was a clear attempt to defraud me big way. The defrauded in this manner "sucker" may wind up in a very-very big trouble. An attempt to manipulate litigation may easily and quickly result in a breach of attorney-client relation and lead the lead-plaintiff-sucker into paying ALL the suit cost and attorney's fees regardless the contingency fees agreement… (i.e. breached agreement. And it may turn him also into a defendant in a malicious prosecution suit….
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
