This is ruling is very weird and suspicious. The defendant didn't even bring up the issue of when the shares were bought. And yet majority (Ginsburg, Millet) decided to add it to the remand.
The problem is, the lead plaintiff (Perry) bought in 2012. So if the lower court decides that only the shares before that date have claim, it would have the effect of eliminating the lead plaintiff!!!! The case disappears.
Very devious, IMO. The court acted very suspiciously on this one.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
