I didn't like this at the bottom of page 12 of the
Post# of 72440
From Page 12...
At the outset, Defendants note that, at the July 15, 2016, sanctions conference, this Court candidly stated its limited recent experiences in handling PSLRA matters, 7/15/2016 Tr. 2:5-6, and its initial “inclination is not to impose sanctions.” 7/15/2016 Tr. 17:18. The Court’s reluctance may be related to both the Court’s noted limited experiences and a belief that the legal claims the Rosen Law Firm eventually made in the SAC may have been “very aggressive but not indefensible."