Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If you are saying that you think big pharma is behind this, then on that we agree.
It's always easier when someone has inside information.
But please show us where you predicted today's bounce. I'm waiting with bated breath.
It would not surprise me one bit if this whole attack were orchestrated by a big pharma that wants to partner with CTIX but wants to force Mr. Ehrlich to take a crap deal.
Think about it.
Absolutely, DoubleJ23, "11th month of therapy" in a Stage 4 TERMINAL cancer patient -- totally and completely unexpected and mind-blowing.
Yes, the fun for the shorts is over. Sorry for your loss. Not.
Why are you still here? Thought you said you sold your share.
..no people in the photos -- so it must mean that SPACE ALIENS are providing this great technology!
"Mako" will publish under another name next time. Some of think that we recognize the writing style from a previous, well I hate to call it "article" so I'll call is a "piece." You know what kind of piece I mean.
Hug-a-stranger Day - If the stranger has ice cream and invites us into his van, should we go?
You are wrong again. These ambulance chaser press releases rarely result in a real lawsuit. Usually the company pays some minimal blackmail to the lawyer because it's cheaper than countersuing.
However I think in this case Mr. Rosen might have a VERY BIG surprise if he were to try to file a case. I actually hope that he does, so that Mr. Ehrlich can countersue and put him out of business. A frivolous lawsuit based on information that is provably false before filing can result in all kinds of sanctions on the ambulance chaser.
If you are Mr. Rosen, I'd say I'm sorry if I offended you. But that would be a lie.
Darn it, my cat choked from laughing so hard at that post. I hate to make him stay out of the room, please stock posting those jokes.
You are dead wrong. To give NEW information at this time would be a waste of an opportunity. ANy new information would be lost in the sea or garbage that is being flung now.
Mr. Ehrlich was exactly right to refute but not let his hand be forced into a poorly-timed release of new data.
I disagree completely. The point by point rebuttal was absolutely necessary. Otherwise we'd be getting the "but he didn't address this" nonsense.
We know who the liars are and it's certainly not Dr. Alexander.
Yeah, I'm sure that his medical condition was under the company's control and it's Leo's fault that he's sick.
This is the real world. People get sick.
I wondered why part of the fill I got was with a 1 share lot.
That is a lie. It's clearly stated that it is for medical reasons.
Feeling a little panicky seeing the stock going up?
Like I said, this would never make it to court because "Mako" would be crazy (pardon the expression) to expose himself to that liability. The retraction of the article and apology would not make up for what he's done, but it would be helpful.
And I agree with whoever said that this was a very long, very time-consuming article to write. "some guy" didn't just decide to do this on his own.
The mere FILING of a lawsuit would have amazing results. First of all, it demonstrates to all that the company believes it can prove that the allegations are false.
Second, it is VERY unlikely that this jerk would want to try to defend such a lawsuit. So the article would be withdrawn and some sort of apology issued.
Do you think that some guy is going to want to spend the next few years with his stomach knotted up, having to spend whatever he earned with this hit piece on lawyers, knowing that he printed false statements?
The sad part is that the guilty parties behind all this will walk away with their huge gains.
The author's defense seems to be "it was my opinion" which does not protect him if malice can be demonstrated, or negligence can be demonstrated. The latter is going to be pretty hard to sell, since the article is so long and he brags about his extensive research.
You can't just knowingly publish a bunch of lies (like, for instance, "Brilacidin has a lot of serious side effects and is ineffective") when the statements are demonstrably untrue, and a reasonable person would have researched the statements to the point of knowing they were untrue.
The entire context of the article seems to indicate a motive which is summed up by his statement that he's short.
Truth is always a defense in libel cases. I can say "CallMeCrazy" is crazy because he told me so!" and I have a good defense. But I can't say "CallMeCrazy is a murderer because he's crazy and I think he'll kill someone." THAT is not truth. Nor is it a conclusion a reasonable person would draw.
If I say that I expect you to steal because you are a thief, and that's my opinion, the "that's my opinion" part does NOT make it protected speech.
This claim that at some point in the future the "insiders" are going to steal from the shareholders is a classic example of harming someone's reputation and ability to do business by making a scurrilous accusation. You can't do that. It is demonstrably true that Mr. Ehrlich, holder of 30 million shares, has been harmed today by this statement. He DOES have legal recourse. When someone makes an accusation of future wrong-doing with no basis of fact which a reasonable person would know would harm someone's business -- that is NOT protected speech.
You can't just say "I think you're going to steal from people" and hide behind "in my opinion."
A good lawyer sues on the basis of several alternate theories. Here are a few theories I would sue under:
Libel
Interference with ability to do business
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Get it?
Funny, I have been thinking of the term "bete noire" but I didn't think it was spelled without the second E. Youssef will get that one, I think.
Here is a link to the supposedly "empty" office building -- it has won design awards and
Hailed by The Wall Street Journal on October 2, 1997 as "the single most important concrete landmark in this country," Cummings Center in Beverly, Massachusetts offers world-class quality and flexibility. It is home to an eclectic population of more than 500 diverse businesses, including dozens of corporate headquarters, and major software developers, plus pharmaceutical, biotech, and other types of research firms, as well as service firms of all varieties.
If you look at the picture, they are long windows. It would be extremely strange in a modern building for those to be internal windows. It's not like a tenement building with air shafts or something.
So the picture was taken at night. Another example of bad faith.
I just looked at the photos again. One of them shows windows which are pitch black. He said he took them in the first week of August. So it appears that he went at night, after working hours, when the lights were on for the janitors, and took a picture of the "empty" office. Too bad the vacuum cleaner operator didn't show up in the picture.
The SA article was posted at 10:30 a.m. The Rosen "investigation" was posted at 12:41 p.m. However, since there is a time lag between the time a press release is submitted, and the time it actually goes out on the wire, the press release must have been submitted considerably earlier. Then, there was the time it took to prepare the press release. Plus, the Rosen press release talked about the significant drop in share price.
So, it would appear that someone at the Rosen firm monitors Seeking Alpha and upon reading the headline immediately set about preparing a press release; or, someone at the Rosen firm knew that the article was coming, and had a press release pretty much prepared, submitted as soon as the anticipated share price drop happened.
Gee, I wonder which one it was. I wonder.
That huge amount of time is exactly why a libel suit would win. The author claimed extensive research, and wrote a hugely long article. Therefore his utter inaccuracy is either negligence or malice.
I sure hope the CEO decides to go after this guy personally.
Sorry LoanRanger I know you're sick of hearing about this.
Thank you, you found another lie. Excellent.
Was that Silvercorp author stupid enough to publish things that were actually provably libelous? It is really easy to write a hit piece that is within protected speech -- but "Mako"s article did NOT do that successfully "in my opinion" LOL
I can't imagine a scenario in which the company would not respond to this attack.
It's important to remember that, unlike the SA author, CTIX has very valuable assets to protect, and they have to be EXTREMELY careful in any response so that the company cannot be sued for libel itself. They also have to be careful not to reveal proprietary information. And, they most certainly have to get their lawyer to go over every single word carefully, before they do anything.
So I hope people will understand that the kind of rebuttal we can post here and on the SA page is NOT something that the company can do as quickly as we can.
I'd rather be the executioner!
You interpretation is incorrect. As I said in my previous post,
"insiders will likely pilfer some of the cash" is absolutely a libelous statement. They are saying that the insiders are so dishonest that they are going to steal from the company at some time in the future. That is libel.
I have no idea who you mean by "they" and who is hiring a "global company."
Are you trying to say that you think the so-called prospective shareholders' lawsuit which was developed seemingly seconds after the article was published, is legitimate and that actual shareholders "hired" a law firm? If that's what you're trying to say, clearly you are unfamiliar with the dirty practice of supposed shareholders' lawsuits, in which ambulance chasing attorneys tell a company that they're going to file a suit. The scenario is that often these meritless cases are settled cheaply by the company, because it's cheaper to settle than it is to hire lawyers. The lawyers get "legal fees" (a payoff) and the hapless supposedly injured shareholders get something like a coupon for a discount on a product (I was offered one of these for an Apple ambulance-chaser suit once -- I think it was for $2 good toward my next phone) or some other meaningless settlement that would have required the shareholder to spend hours assembling documentation. In other words it's legalized extortion to benefit the law firm.
So if you are saying that a law firm would not put out a press release claiming that they're "investigating" a possible case unless such a case were true -- why don't you come over to my place, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn that I'm planning to sell.
If I've misunderstood the point of your post, please tell me what you really meant. (NOT being sarcastic here)
"insiders will likely pilfer some of the cash" is absolutely a libelous statement. They are saying that the insiders are so dishonest that they are going to steal from the company at some time in the future. That is libel.
EDIT: part of libel suits the is concept of damage. Did an untrue statement or defamation of character (which is what accusing someone of being "likely" to steal is) interfere with their business, their ability to make a living, or their finances? Certainly this statement does all of those things.
Rdunn88, I totally agree with everything you said. Shall I send the defibrillator over to you? LOL
Negligence is not a defense. In fact, it is one of the definitions of libel. Someone who claims to have researched extensively, and writes such a long article, and claims (which I frankly find difficult to believe) to have hired a Ph.D. to research the science -- but then ignores all the evidence that the drugs might have efficacy, and all the clinical trial data and FDA approval of trials -- that's libelous.
I'm sorry to say that there are plenty of OTC stocks that had moves like this with little or no publicity -- because of the traders' groups pumping and dumping them.
LR, you CANNOT say that you think someone is going to steal from a company. That is NOT protected speech. That is an accusation of dishonesty which injures someone's reputation and hurts their ability to conduct business. It's the very definition of libel.
You CANNOT allege that there none of the drugs can possibly work, when there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. That is not opinion, that is deliberate falsehood. That is libel, either from negligence in research or from actual malice.
You may not know if anything was libelous, but I do. It is libelous to say that the CEO is going to "pilfer the cash." It is libelous to claim that none of the drugs can possibly work, when any small amount of research would have revealed that statement to be untrue (negligence is one of the grounds for libel). Moreover, as he claimed extensive research, he cannot use "mere" negligence as a defense -- this appears to be actual malice, especially since he said he is short the stock.
There are lots of other things too. I won't waste time going into all of them, but --
Bunny was correct in pointing out the weirdness of trying to blame the problems of NNV* on CTIX. That is another demonstration of actual malice.