OK Andrew, as, unlike a number of mushrooms on this forum, you appear to take a reasonably balanced approach to your posts, I'll respond to your legitimate questions.
First up though, we need to understand that I haven't suggested anything - I asked a question (something good ole BCR can't quite seem to get his head around) - if people infer anything from that, so be it.
My post queried the statement by Git that at least RCE "...isn't.... being dragged through the courts.", presumably, seeking to distance the current iteration of the company from its predecessor, Chemeq. I made no reference to the the nature of any possible proceedings, nor do I consider that to be relevant - court proceedings are court proceedings.
The subsequent debate (I use that term loosely) has revolved around the emphatic denials by various posters of any such proceedings, based on nothing other than their unwavering belief that if there WAS anything before the courts, the company WOULD have disclosed it. Certainly, anything that materially affects the company (its finances, reputation, etc), carries with it a DUTY of disclosure which, in my view, applies irrespective of the nature of the dispute. That then enables the shareholders to make their own determination as to whether, or not, the matter is cause for concern.
My opinions about the track record of disclosure by this company are well known, hence my initial question.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)