Boxing is corrupt. But that has nothing to do with which fund an investment company sells the shares of a company in. Chipotle, which is included in the same fund, may have done worse in the last 12 months than PBC. Their shares have lost close to half their value since last summer. But I don't hear anyone saying TACOS are corrupt.
The implication though is that funds were raised in that manner not through poor judgement, but because of some tacit arrangement between Haymon and Caldwell. And it's in the complaint itself "The Funds also did not disclose Caldwell's personal relationship with Haymon or how that relationship influenced the decision to invest in Haymon's company or how such a relationship might present a conflict of interest."
I'm not defending anything. That's what the lawsuit is. The investors are mad that PBC was included in a fund with stable companies. And they invested in that fund, instead of a higher-risk, higher-reward fund, because it was supposed to be stable. And the fund lost about about $1 a share in the past year. (From $8.80 to $7.90.) You can go to the Waddell site and see what companies are included in that fund. Chipotle is included in the "safe" fund, too. And it's crashing and burning. Investors put their money in funds that include safe companies like Coca-Cola because they have been around for a 100 years and aren't expected to go anywhere any time soon. But they also don't grow much at all. Companies like PBC, which are high risk, shouldn't be included in funds like that. The manager who put it in that fund should've put it in a different fund. That's all. Right now, Chipotle shouldn't be in there, either. They are dying because the e-coli outbreak in their restaurants have all but ruined them.
Right. And if his wife also has a corporate job at Chipotle, that fund manager is really screwed. I don't know why it's included in that fund. It is a riskier investment. There are funds for people who want to make riskier investments in exchange for reaping greater returns. The PBC investment would be welcome in those, too. There is nothing inherently wrong with investing in a risky venture. But the PBC losses and the Chipotle losses combined hurt that fund. The shareholders aren't suing Waddell because they broke the law. They're suing them because they lost a $1 a share instead of earning about a dime a share. Investors were looking for something safe, not risky. They can't sue about Chipotle, because those losses were due to an e-coli outbreak. But they can sue because PBC was a riskier investment.
No, let's just pretend it's about something Al Haymon did wrong. Even though he's not included in the lawsuit at all. PBC isn't getting sued. The thread title is incorrect.