Really! The stock went up two days in a row after your last comment about continued bleeding down. Those two days of green occurred without a catalyst and without a transfusion. The May 11th downturn broke the channel and it's not clear what happens next. Despite your multiple comments to the contrary, the channel lasted from March 29th through May 9th. In the aftermath of the court loss, there was some volatility until the channel became established. I restate: it is not clear what the trading pattern will be since the channel broke.
To my knowledge, "bleeding down" is not a recognized pattern for chart analysis of trend lines. Nevertheless, and semantics aside, the stock is trending lower, but the recent volatility makes it challenging to give the current chart a specific label. Furthermore, a technical analysis of the chart prior to the most recent court decision has little bearing on the current chart pattern since the company is now reinventing itself. Therefore, including justification for concluding the stock is bleeding down that uses a share price from prior to the court decision (as you previously stated: "Not sure what chart you are referring to but the stock is down 3 months, 6 months, and year to date.") is not analytically sound.
I remind you that you made repeated assertions about bleeding down while the chart revealed a channel.
All this is just my opinion. Folks here should do their own analysis. There are many excellent resources available for free on how to interpret stock charts and trend lines.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
