Each investor that sold would have to sign a statement of claim inferring that they were somehow deceived by Spotless, either by Spotless making false statements or knowingly or recklessly withholding relevant market news.
Take Bellamy. It is alleged that for months they knew sales were tanking and stock was piling up yet they kept reaffirming that all was well for many months and restated false guidance.
This never happened at Spotless IMO.
The investor then has to have decided to sell his/her shares at a loss because the real and true picture, that had been concealed, finally emerged and the investor believes it is in their best interest to sell at a loss. The mere movement of share price is not enough, no matter the magnitude of the movement, else we could sue every time a share price goes down and we sell.
Share price is simply a reflection of confidence and supply v demand. It strikes me that if a person panics and sells every time their shares goes down and does not consider the underlying strength of the company, then they really ought not to be in the share market in the first place. Sharemarkets are inherently risky places but Spotless underlying position was always strong, so why not just ride out the depression?
It still has to be shown that there was an action or inaction by Spotless that amounts to at the least - dishonesty before the case can succeed. Merely losing money is not enough.
