No post on this blog since the February 22, 2006 verdict has attracted as much attention as the commentary by value investor Todd Sullivan recommending "a shareholder lawsuit against the state of Rhode Island for the financial harm we have suffered as owners."
Earlier in the day a legal expert opined. Now we have a Wall Street expert providing a point of view.
***************************************************************************************************************
Expert on financial markets comments on possibility of shareholders' lawsuit against the state of Rhode Island:
First of all, lead-paint watchers, here's an observation: Of late, it has been unusually quiet from the Motley Rice folks.
That said, let's get to the point. I don't see a shareholder suit against the state of Rhode Island as likely. However, damages from an unconstitutional act such as a contingency-based-lawsuit can be addressed to the plaintiff firm of Motley Rice and to possible Rhode Island parties who deemed to benefit. This could be highly likely given the possible missteps of Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch in what I perceive as alleged preferential treatment of DuPont.
I will add this: The state of Rhode Island has a major hurdle to get past the contingency issue. From that, there could well be an onslaught of litigation directed at Attorney General Patrick Lynch and the plaintiff law firm of Motley Rice.
****************************************************************************************************************
Reader comment welcome. Please contact MGenova981@aol.com
Comments