CO thx.

Just checked court docket 5:40 PM 8/26. Nothing.

CO - highly unlikely IMO that parties are talking settlement. Too much at stake, too many unknowns, but mostly a more-or-less binary decision coming. Parties tend not to adjust settlement based on percentages where both have a chance to prevail entirely.

Gary - be well.

Poor Man - what was the case? Don’t just say so, back it up.

“Keytruda” of course. Fat fingers + spellcheck = nonsense.

Thanks Flipper

Flute/all - I thought the key truss patent expired in 2028. Is “going generic” different? Or is my date incorrect? Thanks

I’m sorry but to use a phrase fairly applicable to a casino bet is total bs. The “house” does not always win wrt investments. I know it’s stupid to respond to Nemnuts who I have blocked but somehow this one came thru. OK I feel better now have a nice weekend everyone who is a legitimate poster with an honest opinion; positive or negative. The rest of you know where you should go.

Gary the multiple MTDs is a function of the originality of NWBOs legal theories and the stakes. This will be the last MTD one way or the other.

BB it will be interesting to see if Defendants’ new MTD will be limited to arguments not already dismissed. Those are considered “the law of the case” and as such resolved with finality unless a motion specifically seeking reconsideration was filed. (it’s too late but permission could always be granted if sought tho likely that would be denied). I will not be surprised if Defs do not totally abandon dismissed arguments tho they may be revised or corollary to their principle causation attack.

MTD: electronic filing is timely until 11:59:59 pm

No risk: I didn’t encourage anyone to sell. GC obviously did that prior to my post. I just encouraged him to insult a stupid poster!! Get with the program.

GermanCol- your English is sufficient for effective insults at least!

Dear GermanCol: I was very sorry to see this post from you. I know that’s a statement of emotion and know that emotion should play no part in investing. But many of us share your feelings about our past reliance and current conduct of the company. I have terrific respect for your careful and studious diligence as reflected in your posts - those will be missed or perhaps you will continue to share your thoughts which I hope you do. We all make our own decisions but it seems to me likely that we’ll have an answer from MHRA within 30 days or so
and I think we both anticipate that will be positive. I hope you are happier with any new investments. For me the current SP is prohibitive of any selling. I wish it was not the case - not that I’d sell but I’d be a hell of a lot happier holding. Good luck and best wishes.

MMs in full “we can reach out and touch you mode” demonstrating precision weapon facility to fly ordinance through the OTC equivalent of an open window - to the 100th of a penny. They must think that’s funny or something.

TORRENCE PS - I just bought probably more than you own.

Uhhhh. The numbers? Sorry to upset you so with an innocent comment. New shares have gone up and down. Hoping this is a good sign.

Captain seems to be an acceleration of share count.

Thx Sojourner best wishes on your wanders. There are many who read your posts and charts but do not always reply. Hope to seen you back soon.

Doc Logic and others of good intentions who elect to remain and contribute: There will be many reading your DD without always posting our appreciation so as not to clutter the board further. Grateful thanks. OTOH my Ignore button is getting a lot of use.

The Magistrate Judge is not dismissing NWBO’s Complaint. Basically the ruling (which I have not read in the entirety) is a technical argument between the magistrate and Posner about what nwbo has to PLEAD has occurred in terms of claiming that the spoofing caused the damages claimed in the lawsuit. This was an area of some discussion at the oral argument and it’s likely that the magistrate teed up this whole analysis beforehand.

But a party will be allowed to amend and plead sufficient facts as long as such amendment would not be “futile” and the Judge ruled (based on the discussion at oral argument I believe) that such amendment “would not be futile.” So nwbo has 14 days to amend and bc it’s already need debated Posner will know exactly what to plead.

Other than delay it’s actually a good thing bc there is no clear precedent requiring this level of pleading of causation (I say that based on the oral argument) so the resultant MTD dismissal will be pretty bulletproof. And I suspect only a couple of months delay will be caused by the ruling and amendment. But in the meantime the magistrate has said that the amendment “would not be futile” which is saying that assuming the satisfactory amendment the MTD WILL be denied

Flip- yes and even the October PR (and maybe the future Nature note) got us to $1.04 while fudsters were saying that submission would never happen.

Congrats to all patients, providers, longs and bet winners. I join the folks expressing appreciation that you last group will continue to set the record straight through diligent research and posting. To those others - hey it’s not too late to get on the successful side and support this potential leap forward for healthcare. I won’t post again so Happy Holidays all. My email from Mr Innes even had a Christmas tree!

Gary - NWBO counsel included a count for injunctive relief. But that would require NWBO to bring a motion framing the issue. Which is IMO unlikely before trial. However as I think about this question again I suppose a really strong opinion denying Defendants’ MTD might theoretically when combined with some of virtu’s and Griffin’s public statements which I think were ill-advised cause such a motion to be filed. OTOH and not to derogate plaintiffs counsel, but an injunction would limit ongoing damages and the greater moral offense of continuing after the court had suggested wrongdoing. Best to all.

hyperopia - two great posts today you are living up to your username thanks as always.

That is a link to state court hearings not federal court as our case.

Red et al: Here is the response just received from the Deputy Clerk:

“Apologies, I have been away from my desk when you called. We currently do not have the capabilities of having the hybrid system in our courtroom, but this will be available via transcript. The attorneys are likely to order them as well. You can email me tomorrow in the afternoon and I can advise the procedure.“

flip don’t forget they were struggling for a while with what probably was an incorrect decision of German tax authorities.

Bruce - no promises abt our attorney. At the risk of being criticized again, I will tell you IM experience that if the Court seems to ask more pointed questions of NWBO counsel than Defendants’ that is not necessarily anything to worry about and often is a good sign. Judge just wants to check his opinion on key points to make sure he’s not misunderstanding something. Best regards.

Yes typo Tx. Thumbs!

Oral Argument 11/4. It will be available for phone-in listening however the Deputy Clerk reports that the amplification system is inoperable. At worst he thinks a caller would be able to pick up some of the argument (my guess is that the questions asked from the bench - what you probably are most interested in - would be of better fidelity). He did not have a call-in number but I will post that once known.

I asked and the Deputy is going to see if the update on the amplification system can be accelerated in time for the argument. I explained that this is a case of public interest.

We talk a bit

Flipper - Stein has only been on the bench for a handful of weeks but he ordered oral argument and the docket reflects that is will decide the pending MTDs by all defendants.

newman I’m a bit surprised the Magistrate Judge in our case ordered oral argument. Possibly bc new appointment status and very important case that will be watched and/or appealed. High stakes. I doubt the original Magistrate Judge would have granted argument.

newman - modest correction Harrington and NWBO are in the same court but not the same Judge. Judge Lorna Schofield wrote an excellent decision in denying the Harrington defendants’ MTD. Opinions are available free of charge but I think you need a PACER number to log in (Opinion and Order is document 147). Our cases are quite similar but Judge Schofield’s decision is not binding in any regard on the decision on the MTD in our case that will be heard by (relatively recently appointed) Magistrate Judge Gary Stein, but will certainly be considered by our Magistrate Judge. Good luck to All on the correct (left) side of the “v.”

dstock- curious why Maloney would file this - there is no requirement is there?

Thx. Obviously I had not known this, thanks.

BB and Senti: done and emailed congressperson who is on the finance comm. Thx.

ATL and flipper thank you. Pretty much as I had understood but more color.