I think you're words are harsh and definitely taking Lorraine's words out of context.
Here's Lorraine's statement...
I cannot comment on the actual litigation at this point in time but I will continue to provide updates when we are allowed to do so. Rest assured, we are being very aggressive on behalf of our shareholders and we will not rest until this issue is resolved to our satisfaction and according to law. The Company is committed that any award in favor of our company will be returned to the market, quite possibly in the form of a stock buy-back program in order to repair the damage that the actions of these parties caused to our Company and its shareholders.
She did not suggest they won...basically stated IF an award is reached in our favor I'll take care of my Shareholders in the form of a share buy back program >> POSSIBLY.
Another example of half facts. That link is to Diversity Jurisdiction. Didn't SM tell you to get a copy of the complaint? If you did you would see That one of the major causes of action was a Fed Rule 10b-5 violation which is a Federal Question. Once a Federal question is raised in a pleading in Federal court, Diversity jurisdiction doesn't apply. All you have to do is a little real DD but you refuse. Instead of blaming RXSF legal counsel, it was the court that erred, not the company.