Anyone else notice how no specific investors are mentioned. Did they even have a complaint by investors to start with or did the Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm go looking for something to get investors complaining. By the sounds of it, the Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd law firm saw an opportunity to make a boatload of money by bringing this lawsuit up. The rest of the piece sounds like an advertisement to malign Microsoft and get the investors feeling entitled. If only Microsoft didn't make it so easy.
Most investors accept that there is risk in investing. I'd guess that not many were looking to bring up a law suit until this law firm started advertising. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they appear to have left the door for this lawsuit wide open. Unfortunately for investors, if they hold onto MS stock, then they will at best come out even as the MS stock will devalue proportionally to the lawsuit award. If they no longer own MS stock, then they may do a little better, but they've already lost some with the recent drop in stock prices. Furthermore, amount awarded in court that actually makes it to individual investors is almost always laughably low. The real winners here are the lawyers who all too often take unjustifiably high (my opinion) payment for the services rendered. It just makes no sense to me why the exact same services could warrant such vastly different payment, depending on the award amount. I digress.