I still think the purpose of this whole "perjury" point is to make a stink, but if he wants to make it, he should make it properly.
The "or (b)" in the middle of the quoted paragraph should have been "and (b)".
This would not make sense yet it is an alternative that Sullivan is suggesting. Just read the bold:
"On the other hand, if the two plaintiffs somehow did review the complaint prior to
certification, it is equally troubling because it means either: (a) the Rosen Law Firm prepared the complaint in a matter of hours, showing that it failed to make a reasonable inquiry under Rule 11 (which would not be surprising because its assertions are demonstrably false); or (b) the Rosen Law Firm knew about the article and had a copy before it was posted online, thereby showing at a minimum that lawyers at the Rosen Law Firm either knew personally or were in touch with the anonymous author who Defendants believe is complicit in perpetrating securities fraud."
Rosen could have known about the article and had a copy before it was posted online but that "fact" by itself, if it were true, would not mean that the plaintiffs reviewed the complaint.
"How is it that you can't get a lawyer to defend you?" the judge asked the prisoner.
"Well, your honor, it's like this. As soon as those lawyers found out I didn't steal the money, they wouldn't have anything to do with me."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
