May I state the same: where is the common sense in assuming that what has been stated in a plaintiff's complaint is fact?  You continue to do so, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations you assume to be fact are disputed, as explained previously.  For example, you insist that:

"JB was warned about [accounting problems] and he went ahead anyways."

http://investorshangout.com/post/409926/This-...accounting

This assumption of yours about warnings is based solely on unsupported allegations in a plaintiff's complaint, right?  If you know something further, please share (of course, you do not).

For whatever it is worth, I will note that public records are recognized for their evidentiary value, whereas complaints and allegations are not.  But, by all means, rely on whatever you best deem fit to come to your conclusions, even if your information is unsupported.  I simply question the double standard.