I imagine there will be a lot of legal jargon used in the proceedings rather than terms like "Chiscam" or "POS." After all, I wasn't in a court of law and/or under oath when I wrote my opinion about the halt. I can't imagine GEO or anybody spending so much time and resources on this only to put a dunce up on the stand as their lead plaintiff.
I have a hunch that they'll actually provide evidence instead of message board banter, which I think has been in their possession since the first lawsuit was announced. Acquiring a lead plaintiff seems more like trying to establish a bar for the damage caused by L&L, rather than digging for evidence. After all, how is a trader or investor supposed to furnish evidence for something like this?
Do you think NASDAQ halted trading because some guy called them up and said:
Hey, but if you're right, and they do send up somebody who does nothing but speculate on the subject, furnishing zero evidence of the allegations, there is absolutely nothing to worry about for those who own LLEN paper!
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.