Your original statement dealt with a completely different topic, in saying that some shareholders should be treated differently than others. My answer was, and still is, that every share represents an equal holding in a company as compared to any other share of the same class. I don't know of any rational court that would tamper with that balance, and again, it could rightly point out that there are mechanisms by which an investor can make money in a falling market (short selling, etc., not my favourite, but an option.) There is also the option of increasing the holding at a lower price, thus reducing the average cost per share. Every investor has to do his own due diligence, and courts support the principle of "buyer beware," especially in regard to penny stock investing, where it is widely known that the prospect of higher gain is offset by the potential for loss. Everyone opening an account answers statements relating to tolerance for risk, and a good broker will never allow a client to purchase penny stock if expressing an aversion to that risk.
Negativity will just cause you stress and ruin your health. A court isn't a magic weapon to make money, it just ensures that everybody loses, except the lawyers. A business as a going concern is worth far more than one that is being wound up. If we do trade again, as I assume current management is trying to arrange, all shareholders will be well advised to support the stock rather than sabotage it. I suspect most of us will be happy to see the day when our liquidity is restored, and we have some chance to recover our investment. Hopefully not much longer. -AuFingr |
