Replies to post #277241 on Sulja Bros. Building Supplies, Ltd (SLJB)

[Disinterested One]

Let's also keep in mind level of proof. In a criminal court in the US system the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil court in the US it's merely a preponderance of the evidence (a lower standard).

However, in terms of equity investments, the burden of proof is upon the company selling the shares. They need to prove the ability to deliver business that will result either in an increased value of assets (and hence cause the market to value their shares more highly) or provide a dividend as a return on investment to shareholders.

SLJB has done none of these. They have made many false statements claiming new/increased business, but they did not prove them. In fact, SLJB said not to believe what they have said.

In the marketplace, such credibility destroying actions result in a loss of investor trust and confidence. Rebuilding that trust and confidence cannot be done via more press releases and promises. It can only be done (if ever) by delivering increasing revenues & profits. Again, SLJB has done neither of these.

IMO.

[janniebgood]

In my opinion the purpose of their campaign of disinformation and confusion is only to stall until the statue of limitations runs out and no more lawsuits can be filed.

I see no problem with the statute of limitations. After all, as long as the company continues to commit deliberate acts, errors and omissions that damage the price of its stock, through any means whatsoever, including but not limited to untrue PRs (such as the "seek and destroy" PR published within the past few months), which acts thereby financially damage its shareholders, the statute will keep moving back and back and back. And besides, there is already proceeding that pesky federal lawsuit of Drago v. Sulja Bros. Building Supplies, Ltd., et al, which tolled the statute of limitations for all shareholders who are determined to be class members through their trading of SLJB during the class period enumerated in the Drago Complaint (roughly August-December, 2006). I would suspect that encompasses a very substantial number of company shareholders since much of the "pump" occurred during same.

The above is my opinion.