This is to encourage more disgruntled shareholders who want their money back, to join in on this action after they relied on statements made by the company back in the day.
But hang on a minute - is the company to blame for losses we don't yet know are lasting? I am the company, am I to blame:"I wasn't there at the time, officer". Some of the people who want to sue will be 'the company' if they haven't sold - do they sue themselves? Or were the directors to blame? Or their advisers? Or George Osborne for changing the rules in the UK? Or the Accounting Standards Board for changing the way WIP is reported?
Yes - it will be as easy as pie to prove individuals' losses. When did people buy for instance? Was the price fair at the time? Or was it over-inflated because frenzied buying was going on? Should individuals have been more cautious? Was the subsequent fall in the company's share price exacerbated by factors over which it had no control - eg a bear raid no-one's seen the likes of before resulting in over 100% of the company's entire share capital being traded in just 5 sessions in late Nov/early Dec (check it out)? None of that will have been deliberately intended to crash the share price - no, of course it won't.
You're all daft. No losses have been proved yet, just that there were integration difficulties and profits and cash didn't arrive when it was thought they would. I'm not underplaying the extent of the shortfall but the large writedown has to be broken down into its constituent parts and any blame - if such can be proved (how about: "we found we couldn't see into the future" as a spirited defence) - and allocated to the party or parties who should have known better.
As a shareholder, if the action is still felt to be appropriate when Kraftwerk or whatever this latest outfit looking for celebrity is called have taken advice from an adult, I would immediately seek to join in the directors and anyone else I can think of, including those who made false statements and spread malice all over blogsites because they were girls' blouses and spiteful and vindictive with it. For a court to determine what the share price was, could have been, or should have been at the point each shareholder bought and sold his or her shares will be a piece of cake.
It would not surprise me in the least to learn that the organisation making the release this morning - clearly intending to make it sound credible by alluding to " may(be) involv(ing) a number of UK based institutional investors who have suffered substantial financial losses as a result of Slater & Gordon's alleged misconduct" was (not) part of a concerted 'short attack' ahead of their news release t part a few of the people it hopes to represent in the future from a bit more of their money. Let's see where the price ends up this week. One would almost think there are forces at work to keep the share price low. And as for their chooice of words:
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/misconduct
I am the company - I didn't behave badly. Mind you, I wasn't there at the time.
Expect great (and early) success. Contrary to my earlier remark about directors not being able to see into the future, I can (see into the future). You'll all still be talking about how much you're going to get ten years from now. Here's something to encourage you:
http://www.rbosaction.org/
And for those who have sold today on the back of this "news", I have a message for you:
BOO!!!
There - that should send the price down another 10c. Pile in people - freebies on offer.
