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.
Oh brother. What is one to believe? That a lying, scurrilous, libelous article was used as part of an attack to deliberately scuttle the price of the stock to benefit shorts. That's what to believe.
No, that's a reasonable conclusion from the totality of your posts.
I don't want to be thrown in the briar patch.
Current trials are funded but perhaps they think that by torpedoing the stock, they can worry the management into taking a bad deal.
You're wrong again. They will never file a lawsuit. They repeated the lies as if they were true, and then said they were "INVESTIGATING" the claims. The claims are based on libelous falsehoods, and if they actually researched those claims and filed a lawsuit, they would then be liable for CTIX's legal fees when CTIX defeated them in court.
This was in support of the bashing article, and no lawsuit will be filed. Actually I kind of hope they do file it, so that they can be smashed into the ground when CTIX countersues them. And they will have to pay CTIX's legal fees, too.
Of course I'm sure you see nothing odd about the quickness with which that press release hit the wires. Given the lag time between sending out a press release and when it actually hits, they must have released it very quickly after the SA article.
What a coincidence.
What you characterize as a "bunch of crap" is the first new class of antibiotics since 1987. It is a drug that the FDA considers worthwhile enough to give the QIDP designation. It is the drug that works as well as or better than the current standard of care, with one dose instead of the 7 doses the other drug requires. And of course, it's the drug that has been in clinical trials and is heading into Phase 3.
I think we can all see what the "bunch of crap" is.
Kahuna, I'd like to offer an alternative theory. It is certainly possible that a company that is planning to make an offer to buy some of the intellectual property, partnership, joint venture, etc., would find it very useful to whack the stock price down, get rid of the individual investors while assembling a large position, and try to make financing difficult for the company -- so that they could come in with a lowball bid which they think the company would be forced to take.
Anybody who thinks that a very long, libelous hit piece could be followed within an hour by a claim that a shareholder's lawsuit was going to be filed, without some prior knowledge by the attorney -- is extremely naive. Anyone who watched how the trades were going -- 100 share lots for buys, bid/ask immediately getting raised when a genuine bid came in at the ask -- well, this is how you manipulate stock. This is NOT just the action of some of the traders' groups. It's something WAY beyond that.
I keep saying libelous. I am not an attorney but I have quite a bit of familiarity with libel law. In my reading, the provably false statements which constitute so much of the article are either negligence or deliberate falsehood, either of which is grounds for a suit. The particular claim that a "Ph.D. biochemist" evaluated all drugs as worthless is a claim that in and of itself can probably be shown to be false and malicious. IF, and it's a big if, such a person was hired (or, as the writer claimed, "is on my staff" when questioned about it in the comments), it is utterly impossible that anyone who is familiar with clinical trials could have looked at the data, the FDA QIDP, the Phase 3 trial, etc., and said that none of the drugs had any chance of working. This ALONE could prove a libel case.
You left out a couple of words in your post. Here, I fixed it for you:
"Hope everyone sold TO ME today."
You're welcome, I just like to help people post more accurately.
Excellent, LR, another one to add to the list of malicious and provably untrue statements. Remember, according to the link that slcimmuno posted, EITHER negligence OR malice are needed to prove that libel has occurred. That qualifies under both.
Good work.
You should have done a better job writing the article. There are libelous statements that would be actionable in a court of law.
"in my opinion" legal disclaimer LOL
Now THAT'S funny. Didn't know you had a sense of humor.
Also, there is NO shareholder lawsuit. The ambulance chaser presented the SA author's claims as fact but covered himself by saying he was "investigating" the claims. There is NO way that an actual lawsuit would succeed in court, because the claims are false, show actual malice, and are clearly libelous. The interesting thing though is that the ambulance chaser will have to identify the article writer for a lawsuit to have a chance of not getting thrown out in the initial pleadings. However there are no grounds for a suit.
HOWEVER: There certainly ARE grounds for a shareholder suit against the Seeking Alpha author. If I can find a lawyer, is anyone interested in joining me in a class action? PM me if you can, or do so during Happy Hour tomorrow. (If you don't know, iHUB kindly permits all to send PM's for free in the hour following the market's close on Fridays.)
Boy are you mistaken when you claim the company won't defend the lawsuit. The author made some major mistakes that have opened him to a libel action which WILL pierce the veil of anonymity. Things like saying that the CEO is going to steal money from the company. Things like saying that he "hired a biochemist" to look at the science, and then saying in the replies that he has one on staff. Things like saying that none of the drugs can possibly work. These are utterances in bad faith, showing either negligence in research or deliberate statement of falsehood, both of which are grounds for a libel suit.
That's just the tip of the iceberg as to what's actionable here.
I have no doubt that when all of the scumbags who are whacking this stock disappear after the next positive clinical trials results for one of the 4 indications that this company currently has in HUMAN TRIALS, I will be very happy that I had the guts to buy more. And that I didn't let any shorty-come-latelies scare me away just because someone published an article that is provably libelous.
I have to leave for the day. Have more buy orders in.
Someday I will be gloating about my good fills, although right now I am angry at the idiots who believed such stupid garbage and sold.
we'll see if you appear again when the next clinical trial news is released.
Echo20, read my response to the article. Assuming they haven't deleted it yet, of course.
You're right, people with HALF a brain wouldn't buy the stock. However the rest of us who know what the company has going for it are buying more now.
The company needs to be very careful with their response. If my conspiracy theory is true, someone trying to steal the company would like nothing better than a hot-headed response which could embroil the company in libel suits, counter-suits, etc.
They have to respond in a way which proves how untrue the story is, and yet gives absolutely NO way for this writer to file a nuisance suit against THEM.
ROMAD Diver I absolutely believe that is correct. I think that this is more than just short garbage; I think that someone is trying to injure this company so badly that they can buy it cheaply, or make a sweetheart (for them) deal for a partnership.
What we've seen today, with the ambulance chaser lawyers coming in so quickly, is nothing less than a well-orchestrated, concerted attack.
Don't be fooled. Don't be a fool. Don't let them scare you out of your shares in a company with the incredibly great fundamentals that CTIX has.
Unfortunately I have to leave in a few minutes so I hope someone else will take over sneering at the new bears who suddenly show up.
Gee, and you have so much credibility from your long-time presence in this chat. Thanks for your concern about us.
[/sarcasm]
Yes, I'm sure that I'll believe the opinion of someone who appears suddenly on a day like this telling us that the market cap is too high for a company that has a possible cure for some forms of cancer, an entirely new family of antibiotics, a possible treatment for oral mucositis, and a possible CURE (not just treatment) for psoriasis.
{/sarcasm]
You mean, you hope that his one friend will find out what a POS he is. The problem is, any friend of his would be another POS ! LOL
I agree, Bunny, trying to claim that Leo Ehrlich is responsible for NNV*'s problems was beyond dirty. I did respond to that, but I doubt that people read all the comments.
Yankee3 that's a great list. Would you consider posting on the Seeking Alpha article as a reply?
The difference from NNV* is that there are actual libelous statements - saying that you expect the CEO to steal from the company is obviously malicious, without foundation, and libelous. Also, I believe the court rulings about anonymity on the internet are more recent than the NNV* lawsuit.
I am certainly NOT going to call the company today, when they are busy determining strategy.
However, tomorrow or next week I certainly DO plan to call the office and ask them to seriously consider suing this guy for libel.
sheshbesh, you are correct. (eom)
canoma: the article is a hatchet job, filled with inaccuracies, outright lies (the supposedly abandoned office just as a starter), and libelous statements. The claim that the science cannot work is absurd. We have seen clinical trial results from world-class institutions, which are running the trials independent of control from CTIX, and those results are good.
Don't be suckered by the people who have orchestrated this attack. They want shareholders to sell, so that they can get the shares cheap. And, I am convinced that someone wants the company pressured so that it will accept a buyout or terrible partnership in a very unfavorable deal.
Don't be fooled.
This article displays actual malice, as well as statements which are provably libelous (like the "pilfering" one). There have been recent court cases which allow the veil of anonymity to be pierced in such cases.
Here's a libelous, actionable statement from the article:
The PolyMedix stuff is one of the many willfully inaccurate statements that can be used in a libel suit. The claim that none of the drugs have shown efficacy is another. The Rosen suit is making the claim that the company has misrepresented the test results -- that is actionable too. They have, however covered themselves by saying they are "investigating" the claims made in the SA article. However, a tricky lawyer will tell you that if a law firm interprets the article as saying that, then the average person (which is the standard that is used in legal matters) would also interpret this article as saying that CTIX misrepresented results. THAT claim is provably an untrue statement -- therefore opening the door for a libel suit.
Torpedoing the uplisting easily could be part of the plan.
I refer you to my "who profits" post from yesterday.
There is a huge difference between NNV* and CTIX. The other company has been around much longer than CTIX and yet has not managed to get even one drug into even one clinical trial.
CTIX however has human trials going for 4 different indications, with 3 different drugs. That is a HUGE difference.
I don't attribute NNV*'s fall to the article, but to their constant changing of which disease they are planning to target.
You note that the ambulance chasers are stating as fact the claim that test results are misrepresented.
This however means that CTIX is going to have to respond with legal action. I expect that the ignorant will continue selling the stock as the shorts attempt to drive the company down further, and I also expect that there will now have to be a libel suit against the author. I hope so.
There is NO way to uplist if it's under 2.
I've been waiting for someone else to say it, but since no one has:
They'll try to close this under 2 to prevent uplisting.
The writer SAID he was short the stock. So it's not a matter of "shorters or WHOEVER" -- it's at least one, and probably more, shorter.
Had something similar happen this morning, though with a much much smaller size buy. As soon as I put in the order at the ask, it jumped higher (and so did the bid).