The allegations are actually quite simple. Liadlaw & Company is allegedly liable for not upholding their fiduciary responsibility. If this is true then there should be and will be consequences. However, the question then comes into play how much they should be responsible and this question is based upon intent. When you consider the past of both James Ahern and Matthew Eitner, there is absolutely some gray area. That being said, can you really punish someone or an entire organization with countless stakeholders hanging in the balance just because you have a few executives who may or may not have a questionable past?
The biggest thing about all of this case is that when you actually start to think about the ramifications, this could become precedent as time goes forward. On the one hand Relmada Therapeutics does have stock holders who will be able to be compensated if Laidlaw & Company is found guilty of negatively effecting the valuation of Relmada Therapeutics. And on the other hand, even if Laidlaw & Company is potentially responsible for failing to uphold their duty but if that failure was not the sole cause of the decrease in valuation of Relmada Therapeutic, then why should Laidlaw & Company be on the hook?