....or perhaps just being misleading.
Lawsuits are often initiated on mere allegations, which are based on little, ir anything, other than reasonable "suspicions". If something more was required, these elements in a petition or complaint would be referred to as "full proofs".
Certainly, one need not have full "proof" of anything before one initiates legal action. In many automobile accidents, for example, one has the fact of the collision, but there is a dispute as to who crossed the center line. Accident reconstruction experts are then hired, often after suit is filed when demands for settlement have gone unmet, in order to develop the evidence. Or, in a products liability case, we may have the product, which has exploded and harmed someone, but the circumstances surrounding the explosion are suspect --- only after further analysis, and much discovery, is the actual defect found.
In PTSC's case, I only had time to skim yesterday's PR, but I seem to recall that PTSC is calling for a "full accounting". Obviously, therefore, they don't have all of the numbers yet --- but what they do have is a suspicion that something is very wrong (which many of us shareholders have been pointing out for at least two or three years now).
So, as usual, Miles, your statement, i.e., about what "good lawyers" know and/or do, is simply wrong. Good lawyers take what is known, which is often bits and pieces of facts and empirical material, and, through the discovery process, then develop the admissible proof that will be required at trial --- because it isn't until trial, or in supporting or defending a dispositive motion, that actual proof of one's ultimate position is required.
Best wishes to you and all.
