I just finished it, and not a lawyer either (but thinking seriously of law school as a result of this BS): my opinion is, like someconcerns said, Sullivan scuttled them.

I've seen several documents by lawyers (not just this case) that surprised me with their relative informality, like this great quote at the conclusion of Sullivan's response:

Quote:

---

Indeed, beginning with the dubious PSLRA certification filed with a hastily-drawn
original complaint, this case has been taking on water since its inception. This Court graciously
granted leave to file a third complaint (Dkt. 24), and then an extension of time in which to do so
(Dkt. 28). Defendants respectfully submit that any further amendment would be futile, and that
this Court should dismiss the SAC with prejudice and let this ship go down once and for all.

---

The Rosen firm truly does not have ANYTHING on which to base their claims, and Sullivan made that clear while citing the relevant precedents that the judge can use in her decision.. I hope that the judge will not give them another bite of the apple, and will dismiss this thing. However, don't expect a ruling Monday or anything like that. Judges seem to take forever to make their rulings sometimes.