This is not unexpected. The timing is very intriguing -- entering into another legal front with an entirely different law firm; Wilke, Fleury, Hoffett, Gould & Birney of Sacramento, CA -- NOT Cantor & Colburn of Hartford, CT. Cantor & Colburn has the technical and legal details of this particular litigation (COE) down to a science and have clearly won most of the court battles to date and would have NO learning curve with initiating this new suit. Cantor & Colburn also have a financing agreement with GERS ($50,000 per month) that is not in place with the new law firm that must have a new retainer and new financing.
Does this mean that GERS is dissatisfied with Cantor & Colburn? Does this mean that Cantor & Colburn thought it unwise to enter into a second front (as the Germans did against the Russians in WW II with disastrous results) but KK needed more vengeance and decided not to follow this advice? Until the reasons are known this must be VERY troubling for GERS' common shareholders -- based on the the last several filings the only method GERS has to finance this second front is through massive dilution that will likely lead to more R/Ss.
The only justification for this action NOW (beyond satisfying vengeance) would be a pending settlement of the MDL suit so that adequate funds would soon be available to commence the second front. If such a settlement is not forth coming this action may be an act of fiduciary irresponsibility. This action also begs the question why it is so difficult for GERS to MARKET its superior technology and can only bring some of the businesses to the table through costly and lengthy litigation?
