I was with you initially grotty, but some of the l

I was with you initially grotty, but some of the language in the response makes me think that Sullivan set the stage for coming after some additional (punative?) damages in the event that this judge agrees substantially with the response. Words to the effect that:

Quote:

---

Third, the Rosen Law Firm suggests that Defendants were in no way prejudiced by the initial and first amended complaints because they were not “required to draft a dispositive motion.” Opp. at 3. This statement displays an astonishing degree of callousness, even arrogance. It wholly ignores: (1) the immediate and irreparable financial and reputational harm caused to the Company and its shareholders both by announcing an “Equity Alert” within two hours of the on-line posting, and then issuing another press release contemporaneous with the filing of its threadbare complaint (Dkts. 39-18, 39-19); (2) the continuing harm to shareholders by refusing to withdraw the complaint at any time in this lawsuit (with only one former client joining the “class”); (3) the significant costs incurred by the Company to investigate and begin defending the complaint, particularly given that the Company has no revenue, SAC ¶62, and was required to give up potentially valuable patents to help fund operations and defense costs; and (4) the abusive conduct has jeopardized the development of promising new drugs by severely restricting the ability of the Company to use its equity line to continue late-stage development of desperately needed new antibiotics and advance novel ovarian cancer and psoriasis drugs, as well as impairing a pipeline of other clinical trials for other experimental drugs.

---

This makes me think that there may be further action taken, depending on the judges response. But, as always, WTFDIK?