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.
That’s all great but your constant stream of doomsaying is hardly limited to your criticism of the CEO. A simple review of your history reveals negative comments about every conceivable issue, and virtually no semi-optimistic view on any subject. Not buying it.
This is beneath you. The mirror image of pumpers saying “this is the next Microsoft/Apple.” You are not doing your credibility any favors with such comments.
Welcome to the real world. This practice is widely used. You can ask any professional Wall Street trader who will answer you truthfully.
Today is a good example. More buying volume than selling volume yet the stock is down 5%. Churning shares back and forth to each other at lower prices. I can guess without even looking that there are many trades of less than 100 shares.
You are annoying the options traders and hedge fund agents. Let’s see what happens with the alleged front loading issue.
Feel better, Steve. You’ll be back in fighting shape soon.
If that’s not a rhetorical question, my answer is I have no idea. You?
Well, it depends on what the FDA says.
Rett is immaterial at this point.
Ken should be in prison. Many times over.
Ridiculous. Election year nonsensical monetary policy. Watch inflation spike even worse as a result.
The premiums are weak these days. I stopped selling CC’s as a result.
“Does the EMA’s Ok for AVXL to submit for full approval mean that our AD 2b-3 trial met all end points??”
No.
Even if both primary endpoints were not met but one primary and one secondary were below P .025, plus the ironclad reduction in brain shrinkage, plus the great safety profile, the results are still the best ever recorded. And that’s the worst case scenario.
The company has already confirmed that the data were very good, with the top line results, and as confirmed by the analysis of Dr. Jin and by the EMA authorizing an application for full approval in Europe.
Ridiculous. This is a dose determination/signal seeking trial.
Thanks. I’m not questioning that the large closing trade actually occurred.
The large closing trade was not on my chart when I viewed it about 4:10 eastern. In fact, it is still not showing it.
I think he’s a bot. But clearly not an AI bot, which would conceivably come up with a substantive post on occasion.
That makes sense. I was just wondering why it didn’t reflect in the chart.
Good points, Doc. OpEx explains some of the volume but still something missing.
I’m guessing it was a large late report, I.e., technically it was during trading hours but reported after. I used to have a platform that indicated as such but I got rid of it when I stopped trading.
A better question is what was the reason for the large trade? Seems not likely to be a coincidence, coming right after the lawsuit.
My instinct when I saw the lawsuit is that it’s designed primarily to help shorts to cover.
My broker says volume over 6 million shares? Anyone else see that? The chart is inconsistent. Unless it was a late reported trade.
You can state very specific facts that don’t necessarily meet the legal standard for the type of claim asserted. That’s what happened here.
I’ll bet this turns out to be a nothingburger, just like the last one.
Prediction: the complaint will be dismissed before an answer has to be filed. It does not plead a prima facie case with sufficient particularity as to several elements of such a claim, most notably causation and damages. But the alleged misrepresentations themselves are insufficient to establish that they were, in fact, misrepresentation, or that they were material. Changed circumstances after a representation was made do not render the prior statement intentionally misleading.
Yeah, I’m not adopting that position. But George does have a point that the FDA has provisionally approved drugs that did not meet endpoints. I can’t say what the odds are. He is defining “failed” differently than “didn’t meet endpoints.” And there may or may not be a practical difference in those two terms, in this case.
I’m not following you. You are saying that not using the word “failed” regarding Excellence is the basis for a lawsuit?
The word “fail” does not necessarily equate to “missed endpoints.” Although it likely does in this case, it is not a foregone conclusion and there is no reason to use that word, specifically.
Good analysis, Doc. Personally, I think this filing was more for negative PR purposes than a legitimate claim. I haven’t read the complaint yet but I assumed it was all for the AD results.
I don’t see how the law firm could possibly know the endpoints, as they have no access to the SAP. Either they alleged something as a guess or the allegations are too vague to pass the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard, would be my guess.
I also don’t see how they can possibly identify a damages period, since there has been no public confirmation that the trial results were misrepresented. How can the market react negatively to an event that has never occurred?
They could easily find a plaintiff to start a class action. You do not need someone with large losses; a single share would suffice. What they lack is evidence of an intentional material misstatement of fact. Conjecture does not cut it in federal court. They also cannot show that the share price declined due to a misstatement, during a specific period of time for specific shareholders. .
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest the possibility that the FDA has seen A-273’s results—effective AND safe—so they know something better is coming down the pike than these MABs. But I’m not a conspiracy theorist so I’ll let someone else suggest this.
No, that’s not possible. My textbooks in business school mentioned nothing about manipulation. A stock’s price is determined by supply and demand, and always reflects actual value.
Not happening without a huge reverse split of maybe 1:50. Plus, Evan is not even talking about it. Not to mention that the article about uplisting that someone posted here is fake. Come back to earth and relax. It’s okay, just wait and see if they actually achieve significant revenue. That is the real issue.
Rett results may or may not have been skewed by the placebo effect. Either way, to me it has always been a minor hedge of sorts, in the event that AD failed. I don’t really care either way whether they continue to pursue it at this point.
That would be great. Except it’s not possible.
I’m waiting. Let’s see it.
Rett is irrelevant at this point. It’s not the main point. Never has been.
I don’t think the GME apes are going to help here.