Not true, it is just the usual assumption from the ceo.

imho only people who only care about money makes these claims

Interesting that the class action lawsuit (with no class currently certified, so currently at a very speculative stage) is trying to go after CDPR under a US Federal law.

Given that the stock is traded on a Polish index and is not directly marketed in the US, it would be interesting to understand why the lawyers believe that the SEC would have any jurisdiction here. I'm guessing they would need to prove that more than a certain threshold of the stock was owned by US investors.

Either way, if a lawsuit goes ahead, the only winners will be the lawyers.

True. It's not the fact that shareholders are inherently bad, but that a bad leader of a company can make to much of a effort to please them. Combine that with shareholders who have no "feeling" for the market and only care for payout and deadlines, as would be the regular case in a production industry instead of a creative one, can muddy the decisions big time.

And yes, greedy people focus on greed. Most likely there is no real case for a lawsuit here anyway, just like investing in a bad movie hardly ever comes to court. It's a bad investment so "deal with it" is the typical law of any country regarding this.

Batman Arkham Origins was so bad on PC that it was removed, and has stayed removed. Talks about suing for false advertisement has come up after most high profile disappointing launches like Watch Dogs and No Man's Sky. All of this is the pointless drama that happens when mainstream people (especially lawyers and the media) get wind of high profile failures in the games industry.

I don't think much is going to happen besides this frivolous posturing.

That's where American Depositary Receipts factor into the story, erm... law suit(s). True. Yet being fully aware of this still fails to evoke sympathy for CDP(R) in me, i have to admit (well, not that i was worshipping CDPR before the whole CP2077 mess came down). It's something CDP(R) has brought upon themselves, now they will have to deal with it...

And its fucking YongYea of course
These lawsuits aren't done out of some moral obligation, its just a bunch of vultures and leeches looking to take a bit out of CDProjeckt Red while their down.

Exactly.

Sure. Yet i find lawyers doing class action lawsuits, and getting rich by kicking misbehaving corps in the balls more palatable than for instance lawyers in corporate legal departments who do nothing than trying to shield their corp from the deserved consequences of corporate misdeeds. (Yes, i know, lawyers are supposed to speak in favor of the party they represent.) So, why exactly are you guys against lawyers taking a shot at a company that misbehaves/misbehaved? Are you okay with corps doing shitty immoral things without so much of a threat of consequences? I am not saying those lawyers are some noble creatures. Maybe they are, almost certainly they aren't. But i don't see why this should lead me, or anyone else, to see CDP(R) as a victim here....

Imho just get back to this when court actually agrees with the lawsuits.

On my part, it has nothing to do with that investor in question being a lawyer (though, of course, he saves on legal fees, any other person interested in suing CDPR would have to bring up).

It's the "rich guy suing only to get a little more rich", that "I am against" (to use your wording).
That, and the fact, that gamers are even cheering up this rich guy for suing CDPR.

It's not as if he is doing it for their best.
Quite the oppsite: in the absolute worst case scenario, CDPR (and with it: GOG) will have to close shop.

And then? Will gamers cheer that too?
What will they have won by that?

"Will nobody think of the poor companies?"

Well, i guess the proper attitude should be either being indifferent (EDIT: indifferent is the wrong term; being dispassionate would more accurately describe what i meant) , or watching curiously or interested over the fence. But fanbois are fanbois, whether they are cheering for one team or another. I might slightly disapprove of unfounded displays of worship and cheerleading. But why should i, or you for that matter, get worked up about that? Let me ask this: There are people who worship Apple with a passion almost to the point of self sacrifice, and others hate Apple with a passion and want to see the company burn. Would you get worked up by either Apple fanbois or Apple haters? Yes, that might be the worst case. But lets not forget a very important point here: it will not be the lawyers who will bring down the company in the worst case. It will be the judgement of a court, but which again mostly would be a consequence of the company's own wrongful actions (and to a degree also depend on the persuasive quality of the documents the legal representation of the involved parties files with the court). There will be some that cheer, no doubt. There will be some full of sorrow, too. There will be some, like me, who will take notice of that rather indifferently. So what? I don't understand your question. What would be there to win in any case when a company misbehaves and is trying to game the market and playing fast and loose? It's almost as if you expect a heart of gold must be hidden somewhere when a company turns out to be operating in questionable ways, and it's the lawyers filing CA lawsuits that are trying to kill off that golden heart. This question kinda makes me feel that you cling too much to the company and can't let it go and rather prefer keeping questionable business practices unpunished (or punished only in inconsequential ways).

I will surely cheer, finally a company/ceo gets what they deserve for lying and putting out half-baked games
we should not let them get away with selling shitty products

The point is to make sure they will learn what not to do ever again

or the poor ceo-s :(
clearly they are the real victims here

In German there is a saying in regard to courts: "Recht haben und Recht bekommen, sind zweierlei".
Translated to English, it would be something akin to: "To be in the right, doesn't mean to win in court".

It's the same viceversa, of course: "Recht zu bekommen, heißt nicht im Recht zu sein" ("to win in court, doesn't mean to be in the right").

I'll leave it at that.

Just one final note:
I I didn't get worked up.
I have no clue what in the comments I made so far, gave you that impression?
"Worked up me" looks and sounds very differently - trust me.

I fail to understand the point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that CDP(R) here is actually in the right, and the lawyers are the ones that do something wrong? That doesn't make any sense, and i feel i misinterpret what you are trying to say.... My apologies. I was misreading your mood :)