As I recall, the charges were dismissed because the original suit did not make the case that the stock price did in fact go down because of the backdating allegations. The judge dismissed the case, but said it could be refiled with new supporting evidence (the judge said the stock actually went up a lot in the months after the allegations).
So it looks like these lawyers are attempting to only look at the first two weeks after the charges, when the stock went down. I think they're grasping at straws here.
Comments
So it looks like these lawyers are attempting to only look at the first two weeks after the charges, when the stock went down. I think they're grasping at straws here.