Not a matter of being sympathetic to lawyers. Is a matter of what was the purpose to point out in an SEC filing that the non-lead law firm didn't recover money for shareholders when they were the lead law firm in 10 M&A lawsuits over a 2 year period in Delaware?
1. They are not "1st Chair" 2. Apples-to-oranges mis-comparisons were usually confined to SMB posters not officially connected to the company. 3. In a derivative lawsuit, shareholders would not get directly compensated. The plaintiff is representing company interests. 4. When was the last time you read a Public Company talk directly about a suing law firm in an SEC filing?
On the heels of the last cut-n-paste boiler-plate "manipulative short seller" conspiracy that was offered, official JBI SEC filings are beginning to read like soap opera scripts IMHO