investigation of unilife, page-7

Yes calmanut when I stood back and looked at it It suddenly appeared that there was a marketing war breaking out between outfits wishing to litigate . Perhaps because individuals are not exactly flooding into the lawyers offices . When you think about it with the action to date limited to the USA who are the potential litigants
1. company employees including directors hardly likely I would of thought
2. Shorters but they gain by a perception of the company being dodgy and they have a huge amount of shares tied up
3. Funds have their own legal people
4. small amount of ordinary holders some of which may have arrived after the announcemnent that a contract was imminent
those who were here before the contract announcement can not complain about it because they had not been informed of it. THose who arrived after the announcemnt could complain re the announcemnt but would probably be negated by the fact that the contract came and UNIS could claim that factors they could not control and were not aware of at the time of the original announcememt affected the timing

Suing re mr smiths complaints would be on weak ground following the steps UNIS took after the original ground I would of thought


I am not a lawyer I struggled through three units of law as part of a management and marketing degree including torts the australian constitution and jurisprudence So this should not in any way be read as advice or qualified llegal opinion