Re. <<(B) "All of these statements have had a severe negative impact on the price of
the Company's publicly traded securities, damaging both the Company and its
shareholders.">>
I wonder why they say this. I don't see any evidence. If you look at a 12 month chart of the stock price, the only time when there was a severe effect on the stock price in either direction was in early May, when the stock went up tremendously after the co. announced an FDA approval for one of their products.
To prove Rutan & Tucker's claim that Pluvia's statements had a severe impact on the price would require, IMHO, marking up the chart with arrows showing when each statement was made, and finding a consequential price decline that cannot be explained by any other factor, such as movement in the market as a whole, or in peer stocks, or in news stories carried on the wires or TV, etc. I think that would be a very difficult thing to prove, especially considering that the chart for the stock is fairly flat, for a tech stock, aside from the early May spike.
Off the topic, I might mention that I only yesterday found this thread, and I find the news in it to be all very disturbing. I also might mention that the only other time I heard of Pluvia was when the stock of Teletek, a little phone company, was soaring as sales were apparently growing rapidly, and I bought some shares. I read posts by Pluvia on AOL pointing out that the governance structure of the company and the past history of fraud by a previous CEO made it difficult for shareholders to tell whether anybody who participated in the previous fraud was still controlling the company. I was struck by his comments, but I ignored them. They turned out to be quite accurate, and I lost a lot of money on the stock. Not because of Pluvia's statements but because the company's real management indeed turned out to be involved in the previous fraudulent management, and they continued their fraud by, for example, grossly understating the number of shares outstanding in its financial reports. |
