(WARNING -- be sure you don't have any liquids in

(WARNING -- be sure you don't have any liquids in your mouth, please, or you will be spitting them out laughing)

GRAMPP SUIT=JOKE OF THE CENTURY.

What has been "forgotten" to be mentioned is who this suit is from:

The Individual Defendants have substantial reason to believe that the plaintiff is not a fair and adequate representative of shareholder interests in this case. According to information obtained from JBI’s transfer agent, as of April 12, 2013, the plaintiff owned 100 shares of restricted stock (out of 89,941,231 shares outstanding), which carry a present value of less than $50.00. The plaintiff was formerly employed by a JBI subsidiary, Pak-It, and these shares were given to him as a kind gesture when JBI purchased Pak-It, so the plaintiff has no cost basis whatsoever in the shares. Further, it is our present understanding that the plaintiff left Pak-It in June 2011 to work for a direct competitor of the company in the same geographic market. Having a personal interest in a direct competitor is precisely the sort of economic antagonism that casts doubt on the adequacy of a plaintiff’s representation of shareholder interests. See, e.g., Davis, 619 F.2d at 594, and cases cited (explaining that economic antagonism typically involves “competition between two entities in which the derivative plaintiff is involved”); Quirke v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 277 F.2d 705, 708 (8th Cir. 1960) (holding that plaintiff was improper representative in action attacking purchase of one railroad of another railroad’s stock where plaintiff held stock in both railroads). See also Chesterton v. Chesterton, 1990 WL 150066, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 2, 1990), and cases cited (noting relevancy of plaintiff’s minimal ownership interest in cases dismissing derivative action when financial entanglements are at issue).

That's right -- a shareholder who went to work for a competitor filed the suit on the grounds that he had $50 worth of free shares.