Ann: Extension for Voluntary Suspension, page-274

I was misled by your statement that it was a Shareholders case.

Sorry but I relied on your information and you didn't supply the name. I wasn't aware it was in NY and therefore my searches related to Australian jurisdication.

And I recalled the previous litigation on that and explained sub judice. Because it's a helpful thing to know generally.

But the case is NOT about shareholders OK? I checked by doing a search on the litigant's name.

https://www.law360.com/cases/5c0f999856216701a31dcc68

Says the issue is a civil rights: jobs case.

The others said it was Employment Discrimination

Somebody missed out on getting a job? Or a promotion? That sort of thing.

You meant well but this was a bit of non-news really... and I have explained why.

It's not helpful to suggest that ADO has been keeping us in the dark, that's my point. And it was indeed helpful of you to not mention it earlier.

Enough!