There is a very valid argument to be made that he misled investors and used his bully pulpit to keep people interested and the stock price afloat. I don't care whether he really thought a deal would get done...you don't announce a deal until the ink is dry...everyone knows that; well, almost everyone.
In addition, look at the revolving door of CEOs prior to appointing himself. He argued they wanted to give the company away. Well, it now appears that whatever price they would have taken is better than nothing...was he working in the best interest of the shareholders by canning them and giving them large buyouts? Probably not...
We can go on and on. The real question is does he have deep enough pockets for a good attorney to pursue this? We know the company doesn't have anything...do they have liability insurance???
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
