He has made it clear what he is thinking, however what he is thinking may not be correct. He keeps indicating that the brokers got the money , not BCIT.why is he or BCIT any different than Eagletech or overstock.com, Patrick Bryne, they both have law suites going on ("NOT THEIR SHAREHOLDERS") against those that shorted them.
Why is BCIT any different than those companies, other than the fact that some cohorts counterfeited shares which he was granted a settlement for.
Sure I know those shares got into the system and caused brokers to borrow and allowed clients to sell them short.
Wouldn't that be considered as collateral damage caused by the counterfeiters? If so shouldn't Megas have taken that into consideration with his law suit against the original counterfeiters?
Now because of his lack of judgement on the collateral effect that those counterfeit shares caused, he now want's us to fill in the gap and sue someone, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN considered and INCLUDED IN HIS SUIT.
If anyone is to be sued for causing this mess it's the original counterfeiters.
They pulled an illegal act that caused another illegal act (blessed by the SEC) to be implemented, as those counterfeit shares were used as a base to generate short sales, over and over.
So Megas, imo, should take a page out of the Eagletech/ Overstock.com play book and sue the right people, IMO it is not the shareholders responsibility to correct this problem it is Mr. Megas's problem, he just didn't do his job when he went after Pino and cohorts. Ok now it's your turn, that is how I see this fiasco.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
