Great point. and my recollection is that Defendant prevailed on partial summary judgment dismissing the fraud and intentional causes of action due to the failure to plead certain facts, such as intent. So I would definitely guess there is accountability there, thus the sealing of the documents. So, instead of awarding PPHM General Counsel something like over a half a million dollar pay package, how about terminate him for cause if that was the case?
Or if it was not his fault, how about disgorge the fees paid to outside counsel if it was their fault in filing a defective pleading?
Or both?
I don't know why or how it happened, but I do know that PPHM settled for peanuts in what seemed like a "billion" dollar damage claim, for the 2 primary reasons as I see it:
first, PPHM was saddled with limitation of remedy clauses in the CSM contract that heavily favored CSM. Why they were not negotiated out when PPHM had all the leverage is beyond me. Read the summary judgment motions and scratch your head like I did!
second, PPHM's "legal Team", at a minimum supervised by PPHM General Counsel, failed to plead critical points in the complaint, which led to those counts being dismissed.
After those dismissals, there wasn't much "teeth" left in the complaint, so PPHM had no choice but to settle for peanuts in comparison to its "claim".
All IMO, but I was looking for accountability for what I perceive to be major errors. Instead, we as shareholders never learned the true story why we settled so low, the documents were sealed, and everybody kept collecting their big fat paychecks while shareholders took it on the chin, yet again.
I was looking for termination for cause for those responsible.
Just my opinion, if anyone has any other take, would love to hear it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
