In re: shareholder suits...
You know, that is an interesting topic you brought up there. In theory, these suits would be expensive and time-consuming. Fact is, they usually aren't. In general, these suits don't take an awful lot of time, and so don't take a lot of money.
The defenses to these are very standardized. Now, I'm not saying that its not possible for it to cost money and be a distraction. I'm simply saying that history doesn't bare it out.
Also, the recent recovery of SLAM's stock will help the defense. Also, I really think this will be a very shaky case. I can't see how the plaintiffs will be able to argue fraud or malice. Are you aware of any examples where these suits were distracting/devastating? I'd love to know -- so often these cases are announced with great flair and prss and then fade away into memories, so I'd love to hear about some resolutions, if you know of any.
So, to answer your question bluntly, I don't think it will be a big deal at all. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if they co. and its officers had insurance for this type of situation (a very popular type of insurance over the last few years).
sds
P.S. I love being able to argue the pro's and cons of stocks. I think ESA could be an interesting play over the long-term, but I just don't have the confidence in their managment yet. |
