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.
Grip - further - NWBO would collect the damages if any in the pending lawsuit which would go to its general fund or other uses.
Grip I meant to discuss damages, just forgot. The damages for a share seller are measured by the difference between the hypothetical “should have been SP without illegal manipulation” less price received. Here NWBO as the plaintiff alleges it sold 49 mm shares, the price of which were illegally manipulated to be lower than if that manipulation had not occurred. Fraud, sec 10b and 9a all apply essentially the same calculation and no, one cannot collect the same damages 3 times for each theory even if successful on all.
Theoretically any individual shareholder who has sold any share or shares during the period of illegal manipulation (if proven) would have the same claim and measure of damages. Is that class-action suit coming? All of the work is done regarding the alleged manipulative trading a plaintiff lawyer only needs interested sellers who sold during the “Relevant Period” identified in the NWBO suit.
FYI the measure of damages for trading on inside information is 3x profit of the trader. That is not alleged here and in an algo case that would not seem to me to make sense, plus there is no evidence of which I am aware.
Kaizenman-san, such testimony is very very unlikely to be allowed and arguably is not even plead by NWBO. I mentioned the challenge of proving causation - causation of delay of approval and therefore commercial availability is a 100+ times difficulty multiplier. Best to you.
Follower see my second post
It’s also available thru NWBO’s PR
Complaint Analysis continued.
The other "battleground" will be NWBO's obligation to prove that the trading patterns did not occur by accident or inadvertence, but through purposeful bad faith/illegal trading or algo schemes. Paras 237-256 provide NWBO's theory of purposefully illegal trading.
Para 257 alleges that there is a statistically improbable likelihood that the patterns were not illegal. Another poster this morning pointed out that the lawsuit would have to engage experts. That is correct, and that is highly typical. Moreover, I suspect that with all of the examples in the Complaint at Paras 59-236, and others that will likely be presented if trial occurs, a juror is going to be annoyed to a very high degree by Defense "experts" whose testimony would be intended to tell the jurors that their commonsense interpretation of the dozens and dozens of examples is all wrong. Very difficult hill to climb which moreover is very likely to infuriate a jury against Defendants as to this question, which carries over to the entire defense.
Para 259 includes a multiple-page chart showing all alleged spoofing on 395 trading days through March 14, 2022. 100% bet this is Plaintiff's primary trial exhibit and blow-ups will sit in front of the jury on pedestals for days if Counsel is allowed.
Surprisingly, the P 259 chart does NOT include May 10 but ends on March 14, even tho the "Relevant Period" of the claim as defined by Plaintiff's counsel extends until August 1, 2022 (and likely will be extended as time progresses). The absence of May 10 is surprising since NWBO has had the data for a long enough period it would seem to have been able to apply the same analysis as to dates prior to March 14.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Paras 266-275 money damages. NWBO makes a claim that is curious to me but that's probably b/c i'm not an expert here - that NWBO was "unaware" of the specifics of Defendants' market manipulation when it sold the 49 MM shares. This clearly opens NWBO to discovery about "what NWBO knew and when."Paras 276- 281 seeks an injunction against spoofing. IMO this is not a serious claim bc (1) spoofing is already illegal, (2) there are monetary remedies if further spoofing occurs and (3) a judge is unlikely to be able to define spoofing with sufficient clarity that s/he would be comfortable with such an Order. But, again, i am wholly inexpert in the area of securities law (I know all about injunctions generally, that's not enough). Also, IMO, if this was a serious claim, a Preliminary Injunction would be sought - what's the point of getting an injunction after a jury trial that's 3 years away if it occurs at all? The absence of a prayer for a Preliminary Injunction can always be brought, but it's not there now.
GLTAL, patients and families.
Some thoughts on Complaint.
Para 9 Plaintiff NWBO identifies trading days on which spoofing occurred, meaning, this data has been obtained and analyzed.
Para 10 Co is claiming damage from selling 49 MM shares at artificially-deflated prices, meaning, Co's counsel can estimate the direct damage amount
Parties/Emotional play to jury. David with a cancer cure vs multi-billionaire Wall St Insider Goliaths cheating David for lucre.
Paras 41 et seq, Lawsuit was not filed until after JAMA-Onco specifically to include allegations with respect to alleged manipulation on publication and thereafter.
Para 52 references "trading records" allegedly showing spoofing, see comment on para 9 above, following Paras describe what happened
Para 59 includes chart showing numbers of "episodes," associated Baiting Orders and Executing Purchases, with % SP decline. NOTE: this is not evidence of causation i don't believe even with expert testimony. Causation will be the battle ground (in addition to procedural issues and specifically scope of discovery by all parties).
Paras 59-236 include Plaintiff's counsel's opinion of the most significant examples of spoofing and are the core of NWBO's causation argument.
TO BE CONTINUED
QL do you not think the Company was damaged in its fundraising efforts and reputation. Your example would apply if this is a shareholder class action which it is not.
no2- yes of course. However you are a respected poster whose honestly held opinions might best be undiluted. Best.
no2: I agree except the forest v tree analogy understates the scope of the disagreement. Most of the posts you refer to are talking about dead trees that have fallen and therefore are not visible to anyone viewing the forest wit perspective. IMO. GLTAL, pts & families.
survivor thx I tried to look at altimetric myself but seems to be a subscription
Would you mind explaining the significance of a 1000 rating? I can guess but that’s not proper dd
TIA
VI thanks for your thoughts. We are all together for the first time for Thanksgiving since pre-Covid - Ann Arbor and here to watch The Game as well. Best wishes to All.
Sky- nice work!
bio thanks my friend and colleague. Hopefully “soon” we will look back on these months of turbulence as immaterial.
Happy Thanksgiving to All. And especially to Happy Librarian for whom this holiday is her/his 50% namesake.
Just sayin’. There is no way that shorts don’t know what’s going to happen. IMO.
VI thx for meaty post. Happy Holiday to all. Be safe travelling and enjoy time with your family if you are so fortunate. Blessings to patients and families hope is on the horizon.
CO: “Annual-like?” Really given the context it should be “Pseudo-annual” but wrong letter. NB: this is humor I will be very happy when deal(s) announced making the question irrelevant.
Merck's Latest Deal Shows Pharma Interest in Oncology Assets -- Market Talk
Mentioned: IMGN IMGO MRK MRTX
14:01 ET - Merck's deal to buy blood-cancer biotech Imago BioSciences for $1.35B represents the third acquisition in the myeloproliferative neoplasm space in the last 18 months according to Guggenheim, and confirms continued appetite from pharma for targeted small-molecule assets with clinical data. Analysts say Merck has less presence in the MPN category than others who might have been a fit for Imago. "Overall, we think this deal bodes well for names with clinically de-risked, later stage oncology assets with clear paths to markets including ImmunoGen and Mirati Therapeutics," the analysts say. ImmunoGen gains 1.8% to $5.32 and Mirati falls 1.6% to $75.52. (patrick.sheridan@wsj.com)
Tryn - agree. Occams Razor.
LC: Seriously an apology is gonna overcome the chance for malevolent players to make a lot of money? Seriously???
Thanks mav - different strokes. Hope you’re on to something. GLTAL
Wow Captain Obvious I think you have to turn in your “I’m officially neutral” I.D. badge. Congrats.
well put. Spellcheck -anti-correction!!
beachhound: we’ll put
Roman that would be good.
Thx as always ATL.
Sparky you and me both brother. WTF. Not just no level playing field, it’s an effin pinball table. Just ignore we’ve proven we’re going up.
IMO get this on Reddit!!
Flip thanks. Agree tho timing on advent probably not in control of the company unless they’ve been holding back. But if that’s the case there should be a PR now IMO so I’m thinking this approval has not happened. But as usual, who knows??
Flip - what Advent announcement are you thinking? Manufacturing approval? TIA have a nice day
ffc: yes, thanks.
ae: excellent. Mods pls consider sticky.
What’s amazing is that Mr Smith claims to be nearly 800 years old.
Soj - if 2.50 not in a “jiffy,” can we say … soon(!)
Nice call Gary. Thanks!
Judge - rising on the cloud to 100 MA means we’re possibly going to the 1.50-1.60 neighborhood?
Fireman - I suspect you are correct.
PM you would have had to provide an address and occupation. What did you report?
senti I believe the announced intention is to PR the “acceptance” of application, a step indicating that all required modules/submissions are complete and in apparent compliance with submission requirements.