You can file a complaint based on the lawfirm using damaging business practices that effected many shareholders.
The firm had the plaintiff sign an online statement saying they had reviewed the complaint and authorized it's filing. Having signed it the same day the article came out they either had the plaintiff perjure themselves or they colluded with Mako and had the complaint ready in advance.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act put greater responsibility on attorneys regarding doing their due diligence before filing a case. They should be sanctioned for the lack of due diligence before filing.
Frivolous cases lower share price and effect company financing. This effects those that continue to hold. It's better for the company to raise capital while the share price is up, not down.
The attorneys overall business practices need reviewing. The firm is in a vicious pattern of destruction of small shareholders and small companies.
In Reply to 'rule_rationale'
I've been buying this whole time and have not realized any losses due to any of this so would not be eligible, I am guessing many are in the same boat, but otherwise I would totally join a suit against Rosen.
Edit: unless I could sue for undue hardship based on the agony of seeing account current value totals of something worth so much diminish unduly...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
