abdm, you are a prolific writer and have been around much longer...

abdm,
you are a prolific writer and have been around much longer than I and given the number of followers and likes, I am guessing you are pretty knowledgeable on most stocks you follow. So with all due respect I must take exception to some of your comments.
If you don't mind I will take them one by one:
you said: Common (come on) TDA, you're smarter than that.
This is just a polite way of calling TDA stupid, he is too much of a gentleman not to have responded in kind but may I suggest you let the facts speak for themselves without being judgmental, and let your audience judge. However, given the number of comments and likes, I suspect he is also pretty smart. Currently he is the only person I follow because I have been impressed by his depth of knowledge and many of his comments.

You said:
Don't get me wrong, TDA - show me the bank account balance of each party and I can tell you right now who will prevail... it's not exactly rocket science when it comes to the judicial system in the US, or Australia for that matter.

In my time I have had to fire many people and trust me when it comes to firing people, bank balances have little to do with winning or losing a case. We have way too many lawyers who will file a lawsuit on a contingency basis and given our laws they get paid even when they lose as most cases are settled out of court and inevitably the settlement includes paying the contingent lawyer's fees.
I had a simple philosophy when I was running our company. When we fired a high powered employee I would meet with them and state my case for their dismissal,backed with facts so they knew I had a strong case. Then I would make them an offer, I would tell them it is going to cost us $xxx to fight a lawsuit, so the employee had two options take that money and save us the aggravation of fighting the case in court with all the repercussions or fight us in court. I added, if we go to court I will use that money to pay the attorney's fees and let the court decide whether or not he is entitled to any damages. Obviously I had sufficient cause to fire them and everyone I made this offer to, accepted the offer. Having said that, be aware that the likes of IBM, APPLE, WalMart, HP and many many more have been sued and lost in court. Money talks in politics and corporate disputes but not as much in employee lawsuits.
The case under discussion is not one that Unilife would have contested if they didn't believe they would win. I suspect they have enough evidence to win, besides the one thing Unilife doesn't have is excess money. I believe the only reason they didn't settle this case out of court was to not set a precedence. I believe the case was purely vindictive and has cost UNS time and money but not its principles. I believe I would have done exactly the same thing.
For those who don't remember what follows, it is UNS's response to the maliciousness that followed the lawsuit:

Unilife Responds to Malicious Blogs


YORK, Pa., April 22, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Unilife Corporation ("Unilife" or "Company") (NASDAQ: UNIS, ASX: UNS) today issued a response on behalf of its shareholders in relation to a series of malicious blogs containing false and misleading information published over recent months by short sellers on the Seeking Alpha website.
Unilife has requested that the SEC investigate these short sellers and their associates for stock manipulation and illicit gains. Unilife categorically refutes any allegations of wrong-doing by the Company, its directors, officers and management. In particular, Unilife would like to address the following:
Most of these allegations relate to a wrongful termination lawsuit by a former employee who was terminated "for cause," and the related SEC review of the matter, which Unilife first disclosed more than 18 months ago and has repeated in subsequent regulatory filings and earnings calls.
Unilife has refuted these allegations, declined a settlement offer by the plaintiff, and expects to prevail should the case proceed to trial. Unilife has co-operated fully with the SEC in its review, provided extensive information, and responded to all questions.  Unilife does not believe that there are any grounds for any action to be taken against the Company.
Unilife has never paid anyone to publish articles about it. No officer has ever sold Unilife stock since the Company listed on NASDAQ in 2010, with the CEO and COO having purchased in excess of $4 million in Unilife stock in recent years. The CFO's departure was not due to a resignation but part of a long-term succession plan. Mr. Shortall has never been a director or officer of a Company that has failed, or gone bankrupt. Unilife has successfully been through numerous due diligence processes conducted by multiple global pharmaceutical customers, investors, analysts, financial auditors and regulatory bodies. By way of example, Unilife last month completed a $60 million non-dilutive debt financing with OrbiMed, the world's largest healthcare-dedicated investor. OrbiMed, together with its outside experts and advisors, undertook extensive due diligence over several months into all aspects of the Unilife business including its products, staff, patents, contracts and commercial pipeline.
Unilife encourages the SEC to act quickly to address these illegal actions by the relevant short sellers and their associates.  Unilife's team, which is now more than 190 strong and consisting of some of the most highly qualified industry experts, will continue to drive the business, serve existing and new customers and build shareholder value.

As usual just my 2 cents