Sphice:

Respectfully, as a junior securities lawyer, I don't think you have a strong legal leg to stand on with your potential charge of Guy's misrepresentation or 'false pretense.'

The first (and most obvious) reason why is that the nature of the information that is dealt with in these types of cases are "facts." Guy simply stating that he expects an accord is not a "fact," per se. The only fact is that there could potentially, if the stars line up, be an accord. Thus, Guy is not mispresenting anything in this sense as he only stated that he expects an accord. The key part is this: any impedements that might occur after this statement was made do not qualify as evidence of promise breaking according to the law.

If you believe it could be proven that guy had prior knowledge that no community meetings would be held during the rainy season at the time of the respective NR then there may be a case for you, which leads me to my next point- that is going to be very very hard to prove.

Moreover, it must also be proven that Guy misrepresented the facts with the intent to defraud another shareholder. With the numerous stock purchases he made at higher prices, this is going to be extremely hard to prove as he himself has lost money on this play as well. Not to mention that Guy really does want what's best for the shareholders.

I could go on but I will stop here.

The last point is that this type of suit won't be cheap- very very serious. That means you'll be paying one of the partners $800 cool an hour.

Ouch.