Your point? It would’ve been more prudent to acknowledge the lawsuit and not include toxic funders in this same post, no? Otherwise the claim is baseless and misleading. The claim was: “Mick is not going after previous CEO. He is going after toxic securities lenders.”
I’ve posted updates on this case for over 2 years, it’s BRADLEY M. LISTERMANN VS JAMES DAVIS AKA MICK DAVISE, ET AL.