Posted On: 09/13/2015 9:42:42 AM
Post# of 72446
Re: daydreaming2 #13717
Remember- the initial press release was synchronized with the Mako article, seemingly. It was on the wires (or to be more accurate these days, published on the internet) about 2 hours after the Mako article came out. I've been told it takes about an hour for the news aggregators to actually get a PR out to the brokers, Marketwatch, etc., after they get it. So if that's the case, then in the space of an hour, Rosen Law Firm:
1) noticed that there was a new article about a company they had never heard of
2) read the 14,000 words (it took ME a long time and I'm a very fast reader)
3) drafted a press release
4) located a lead plaintiff
5) issued the press release.
You think you could do that in an hour? Depending on whether the "Law Firm" is a real company, or a one-man bucket shop, a real law firm would have had to have a partners' meeting to decide whether to proceed with this.
I also point out that the initial press release said that the Mako article had "REVEALED" that CTIX was supposedly a shell company. That incautious language means that they endorsed that opinion, and that their further dissemination of this to international media means that they were reiterating a libelous claim as fact. Therefore, THEY are also liable for libel.
A lawsuit would "reveal" whether they had advance knowledge that the article was coming, which would make them a co-conspirator. I'd sure like to know the answer.
1) noticed that there was a new article about a company they had never heard of
2) read the 14,000 words (it took ME a long time and I'm a very fast reader)
3) drafted a press release
4) located a lead plaintiff
5) issued the press release.
You think you could do that in an hour? Depending on whether the "Law Firm" is a real company, or a one-man bucket shop, a real law firm would have had to have a partners' meeting to decide whether to proceed with this.
I also point out that the initial press release said that the Mako article had "REVEALED" that CTIX was supposedly a shell company. That incautious language means that they endorsed that opinion, and that their further dissemination of this to international media means that they were reiterating a libelous claim as fact. Therefore, THEY are also liable for libel.
A lawsuit would "reveal" whether they had advance knowledge that the article was coming, which would make them a co-conspirator. I'd sure like to know the answer.
(0)
(0)
