btw, none of us know what the employment agreement actually says and we probably never will.
Whether or not the language in the employment agreement is ambiguous remains to be seen.
But in a discussion with julietoo earlier this week, she raised an interesting point I had not thought about . . . which is, if there is in fact ambiguity in the language of the employment agreement, a settlement is the most probable outcome . . . and of course the judge then helps the parties cut the baby in half before it ever gets to trial . . . but, more importantly, as julie pointed out . . . any settlement is likely to be structured anyway . . . so take the numbers you are hearing, cut them in half and divide by 5 years remaining on Stern's current contract and what you have is a pimple on the ass of an elephant.
also, the notion that Stern has no claim because the merger wasn't formalized until 2011 ain't gonna fly . . . form over substance . . . it was a de facto merged entity in all outward appearances no matter how the bookkeeping was segregated and performed
and the legitimacy of a class action by shareholders is dubious at best . . . but lawyers file lawsuits . . . that is what they do; the absence of a legitimate basis rarely seems to be an impediment to collecting due diligence fees and filing a frivolous claim (read Blessing)