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.
I hope you are right, but the evidence is still pretty thin and just a little more than reading the tea leaves. It's a good guess, but I would not bet the farm on it.
Thanx for that EX. I was wondering what happened to the Posner Jan 12 response.
I pretty much came to this conclusion in post # 662558 yesterday:
Tuesday, January 09, 2024 1:00:49 AM
Post#
662558
I would add another thought about the length of time validation may take. Given the extreme size of the MAA submission of over 1.7 million pages, perhaps the validation procedure may take a week or two longer than a "normal" validation. Just a thought I had.
Flip, I would not quibble with Ex over this distinction you make.
Thanx for adding your broader perspective for the next months (years?). The information is useful, even if I would choose to ignore some conclusory remarks which are purely speculative opinion.
You are right - I forgot about that little detail...
I imagine that the response from Laura Posner will drop sometime late Friday afternoon on the 12th. Does anyone care to speculate on how long the Judge will then take to issue his decision on the MTD (which I am sure will be denied).
Once that is out of the way, we will start the discovery phase of this lawsuit. Clearly this will be very interesting and important for NWBO. How much of what is learned in discovery will be available to the public or investors - and when? I also wonder what sort of information will the defense be looking for, in their discovery from NWBO?
For example, in documentary discovery, will we (the public an/or investors) be privy to the list of documents requested? Will be be privy to the list of those persons to be deposed during discovery? Will be be privy to the list of experts to be called? How much of the content of any of this discovery will we get to know prior to trial? Or will we be pretty much in the dark until the trial actually begins (if not settled before)? If we are to be in the dark throughout discovery until trial, unfortunately this will give the shorts plenty of time to do their thing!
I would add another thought about the length of time validation may take. Given the extreme size of the MAA submission of over 1.7 million pages, perhaps the validation procedure may take a week or two longer than a "normal" validation. Just a thought I had.
Just starting to read the 85 page document and right at the start it struck me that the Magistrate is under the faulty notion that the entire trial all took place in 2022. He obviously does not know much about NWBO but a lot more about spoofing.
Thanx, she works for me.
There is now a Jan 5 entry on Court Listener #139"
No, I think that a response that the submission is not validated, is not material AS IT CAN BE FIXED AND RESUBMITTED. SO IT JUST REPRESENTS A LOSS OF TIME UNTIL THE FIX IS MADE AND RESUBMITTED. iT IS NOT PERMANENTLY DEAD. SO NO HARM, NO FOUL. --
THEREFORE NOT MATERIAL.
Actually, I do not think it would be a material event, since they can respond to the problem and resubmit, so in the long run - no harm, no foul. so no, I do not think this would rise to the level of a reportable material event. The only thing lost may be a little time and a bit more effort.
I think that no matter whoever is right about whether NWBO actually promised to PR the "validation" = "acceptance" of the MAA submission, I think it would be prudent for NWBO to nevertheless PR this event in any case - even if only 2 Co's have done so in the past. This would eliminate another talking point for the bashers at no cost to NWBO. It could only help. There is no downside to doing this.
Wromg. It will be $8.345
In the very near future, (bang, bang, bang....)
Like MTD denied
Like completion of EDEN
Like partnerships
Like combo results
Like Nature article
Like short squeeze
Like start of more clinical trials
Like institutions starting to dip their toes
Like major media starting to pick up the story
and more....
DD, here is another thing you might want to clarify with BARD. The distinction between a Broker and a Money Maker. Thus if I have an account with my broker, say TD, with whom I place an order to buy some shares in ABC company, and TD in turn places this order with say Market Maker Citadel and the order is executed. What happens if TD goes bankrupt, and what happens if Citadel goes bust. I believe that the Brokers are insured up to some limit should they go bust?
DD, could you please enlarge slightly your question to BARD to include Market Makers in Canada under Canadian law?
You could always post on iVil instead. For
You could always post on iVil instead. For how long did you ban yourself from iHub?
I understand this is not your answer, nut from BARD, but you do seem to accept it as understandable and true. I am afraid I am still in the dark as I will point out below:
Hi DD,
Thanks for the explanation, but I am still in the dark as to how internalization has any effect on short covering as you put forward:
SUGGESTION:
When writing a post PLEASE minimize the use of pronouns as much as possible, especially if the reference is somewhere in a previous post. It would make reading many of the posts so much easier and clearer, and avoid requiring me to guess who or what this is about or to have to bother to go back through the entire thread to figure that out.
Thanks Flip.
Flipper, do you have a copy of the abstract from Nov 17 that you can post or provide a link to?
I concur that the update was very ill conceived and could have been written much better. It left the company open to all the jabs now being made and inviting further shorting. But, it is the big picture that is important - this is going to MAA and approval very shortly. A few weeks more or a few weeks less is not going to make any difference to the longs. Not meeting our expectations is aggravating, but in the long run will not make one iota of difference. This is going to be the next SOC in this field and probably many other cancers. So sure, management deserves a bump on the head for handling the investor relations so very poorly, but i am confident that in the long run we will all be very happy despite the hiccups along the way.
Thanks for that.
Thanks, starting to make sense - sort of.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. But unfortunately you still need to make it much simpler. OK, I get that the purple CSF1R-I made a big difference - much better. Then you point out that the FDA approved CSF1R-I brought no revenue to Daiichi so far - not so good. So where are you going with this about CSF1R-I ? In any case, please explain how CSF1R-I relates to DCVAX-L that I should be interested in it?
Hi Dstock, I am sure you are making a great point, particularly with Flip's seal of approval, but unfortunately I am not understanding the point you are making - and I would really like to. Can you please explain more fully the point you are making so we can all understand it.
Can't get it to work?
Thank you Hoff, that was great.
I would also comment that in my opinion this will definitely settle after the MTD is dismissed. I would further speculate that the size of the settlement will be proportional to how quickly the judge makes his ruling to deny the MTD. That is to say the settlement will be much larger if the judge rules to deny the MTD say in 2 to 4 weeks rather than 2 to 4 months, or say in 1 to 2 months rather than say 4 to 6 months etc.
Anything without a date, is a waste of our time.
Margin, that was very cute. Was that done using chat GPT (the art side)?
Does anyone have a play-by-play from yesterday's oral arguments in court?