You may be right, anyone who's willing to spend money can find attorney's willing to take a case, regardless of how frivolous it is. Their will only be one winner in such a suit, the attorney's.
I cannot tell you how many stocks that went down had law suits filed, but I doubt if over 1% of them made money for anyone but the attorneys.
I frankly hate the idea that every presentation by a stock company is proceeded with a disclaimer about the risks of buying stock, but it's an SEC requirement. I feel the same about drug commercials that spend most of the time on the problems their drugs may create, but that's an FDA requirement. I believe that people need to be responsible for their own acts, and if anyone has a claim here, it's against Friedland if he was truly responsible for your buying shares, and even then, you made the decision to put your faith in him.
I don't believe their is any issue with the science the company is developing, and the products that will come out of it. If the science is good, and the products are good, in time the company will have tremendous success. That is all that really matters long term. Short term we're stuck with the likes of Friedland as well as being invested in a company that likes to play their cards close to the vest.
Gary
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
