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.
Thx for the positive report beartrap
Yes. Training
Red my thoughts exactly
hope any opinion whether new Magistrate Judges work as apparent securities defense counsel is a plus or minus? Might bring useful perspective and insight.
Maverick thanks. PS
“Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife
Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray;
Along the cool sequester'd vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.”
-Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard
BTW I think things are going to get quite interesting rather soon. Best Regards
Doc: thanks for bringing a smile to my face this afternoon. Have a great weekend. PS: by the latter comment, I mean that I hope you enjoy your weekend.
Doc to use the current phrase- there is a “non-zero” chance. But applying political
pressure successfully to a weak regulatory agency as your example shows is, I believe, a different undertaking than attempting to compromise the civil judicial system. I’m a lawyer tho so perhaps I’m not objective. One of the very many reasons why MHRA was the strategic choice.
Doc I am absolutely not a conspiracy person. But the timing in connection with the investigation announcement, the explanations (at the time - idk if there has been new disclosure) of why the fire suppression system didn’t work, the utter and complete destruction of the entire record safekeeping facility …. Hey, you had one job to do!!
Doc. Strains credulity
Jd yes tho I doubt that primarily friendly warrant holders are going to short aggressively - they are not the core of the problem.
I dunno continued … How much is the plaintiff in need of money at the time that a settlement is considered? How expensive will discovery be? That is a pure cost to defendants. and these are just the easy to think of but not always the most material factors. I will say that settlement is more likely (1) if the MTD is denied and before discovery costs become material tho for the primary defendants those costs likely are not material. Otherwise, (2) if the Judge refers the case to a settlement master tho again I doubt that either plaintiff nor the bigger MMs would be likely to settle, leaving (3) on the steps to the courthouse. It’s possible that one side or the other could get summary judgment following discovery but really this and the case Hoffman mentions as the pattern are kind of the earliest/lead cases on this theory.
I dunno thank you for the compliment I learned from a knowledgeable poster that you are a person of authority. I have no opinion particularized to this case to offer about settlement. There are so many factors and most are unknown to me. Reportedly 97% of civil cases (state and federal) settle (I just tried and one a case now on appeal!). Primary factors include: how bad or good are the facts? (Probably bad since nwbo has been collecting data for years in conjunction with counsel). Is a settlement going to lead to other lawsuits involving the same theories (yes!!). Is this the case to defend potentially unlawful trading practices? (no absolutely not!!). Does the plaintiff want to settle or to make a point? (No, yes).
Jim the Rule 11 noises were imo unhelpful for the defendants in the first place. Judges are very hostile to those and while defendants may contend that some aspects of the Complaint were novel, the Amended Complaint and especially the caselaw developments contrary to Defendants’ briefing just make a R 11 even less defensible if it ever was. But defense counsel have not seemed to be making the tactical decisions I would make. It will be interesting if they actually do that. It would not be likely bc federal judges are highly non-provocative but an opinion on the MTD - assuming denial - might mention the threat. That would be very unusual tho so unlikely imo.
QL very interesting. I cannot understand being short at this point but there’s a whole lot I don’t understand. Accepting your premise tho do you think this information may portend a raid for short covering? Are there alternative scenarios or is this just the game? Any further info appreciated. PS - I think the Magistrate Judge has the Opinion and Order denying the MTD already written, subject only to some unexpected contention in Defendants’ Reply. Bad Form indeed to fail to bring to the Court’s attention the entry of a replacement opinion in one of Defendant’s important cases.
dunno- punitive damages IF they are available for the claims that survive the MTD - would be premised on the violation of securities law not the business of NWBO or it’s patients receiving treatment. But there certainly could be sympathetic carryover.
Also Hoff is correct that anything remotely proprietary in nature will be under seal.
Flip - I don’t disagree with chat. But the damages calculations will not be the subject of motion practice. Instead, defendants likely will bring Rule 56 Summary Judgment motions to have any claim for punitive damages dismissed. The MTD at the beginning of the case tests whether the allegations in the Complaint are (if true - that is assumed at that stage) sufficient to state a recognized claim. The R56 comes after discovery and tests whether the facts developed in discovery are sufficient to support a potential recovery - of punitive damages in this case. If there are disputed material facts, the moving party has to concede the interpretation most favorable to the non-moving party. That’s how the rule works. If the plaintiff gets past the R56, the jury resolves those factual disputes. Best wishes
BB. OK. Let’s.
flip there is not a designated time or aspect of the litigation at which point damages would be publicly reported. For example each defendant could in discovery and likely will ask NWBO to identify damages claimed. That could be by interrogatory submissions or getting plaintiff’s expert’s report. However the responses/answers to those discovery inquires are not filed with the court. Also damages continue to accrue. In my experience in federal court (not involving securities cases, but the procedures are not different) It would not be unusual for the case even to settle without a prior damages calculation being filed publicly.
Robot: 100%. Correct. Too many shareholders got too tired of the silence and resultant attacks. We’ll see if that is going to work.
Riley yes and thanks. Good luck!
ski - I agree 100%. But management only control our side of the settlement equation.
flip- Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s brief is due Sept 27. Then the Court decides whenever it does. My sense from what the Court has done so far is that it wants to move the case and does not seem have a feeling that Defendants’ motion was meritorious. But OTOH this is a very high visibility case and the Court will want to write a string opinion. My guess is the Court will have a draft opinion in the works before Defendants file their Reply. Maybe 4-8 weeks for an Opinion and Order after 9/27. Guessing.
We don’t know for sure but it appears that the Court has backed off it’s earlier directive about the time for Defendants to answer if the MTD is denied.
flipper for every post like these there are dozens here who feel the same. pls continue your study and posts they bring depth. yes there are plainly 2 sides here you’re on the side of evidence and progress. we respect if you decide to take a break - if so see you back soon.
Thank you BB for your informed perspective and interpretation.
Hi is anyone here aware of a notice period required for filing an MAA? 60
days? This was suggested to me but I have never heard such. Tx. Best.
Hoffy- thx for keeping up on things. Plaintiffs have consistently responded/filed things very promptly and before deadlines require. IMO the Magistrate Judge’s docket order that Defendants not file a R11 motion is an indication that the Court has some opinion about the MTD. Especially bc it already had mostly the same motion at the time of the R11 entry. Since Cohen also had that earlier motion and in any event it was quite predictable I’ll bet you $.56 (todays sp) that NWBOs reply is filed in July. And just to go really
wild, another $.56 says ruling before October 1. One possible scenario I’ll admit: the case is going to be litigated by Citadel (at least) to the “nth degree” so Court might take a little extra time. But I bet the Opinion denying the MTD is already mostly outlined or maybe written. “Have a good one” as someone says here.
Chiugray to me this is irrational behavior by very successful investors/manipulators. In my professional life tho I overthink and overrationalize sometimes. And, I cannot see another explanation. Best wishes!
Chiugray thanks for the thoughtful response. It just seems to me there have been a few hundred trading days since tld, and about 150 since the Journal article, so there has been an opportunity to cover to some extent. Plus get rid of borrowing expense. Maybe a giant game of $billion chicken. Where’s the upside? I’m guessing May 10 redux upon approval is not impossible. Have a nice evening.
Chiugray- Id like to agree with your theory but why not just cover and move to another OTC victim - especially one with (a) a lower cost to borrow that is (b) less likely to get RA approval/announce a material business development, or any one of a number of reason why longs are investing? It’s clear only news is gonna move things (I hope) but news has to happen eventually I believe.
ATL thanks. Very interesting.
Kaiz - yes I recall that. Thx for the posts enjoy your weekend.
Kaiz- Does not appear that the market holds the same theory.
Doc-Hello. I used to cut my own grass to save money but eventually I hired a company that has large lawnmowers that did a better job faster. The task of commercialization is new and not anything that to my knowledge anyone in the Company has experience in doing.
Kaizen-san: Your explanation kinda makes some sense and I sure as heck hope you’re correct. Having LG appear supports the hypothesis that the Company wanted someone very well versed in its disclosure concerns and tactics to serve as its spokesperson for this interview. And one would think that if the Company didn’t want to participate they could have cancelled. In any event it certainly seems that any strategic, short attack, regulatory concern, embargo, or any other reason for complete silence is no longer in effect. So, perhaps more significant news follows. “Soon”?
Ouch! That’s as close to “you’re gonna lose that R 11 motion if you are stupid enough to file it” as you’ll ever see.
CO - not sure I agree. Ever heard of kleenex or band-aids?
Survivor congrats. Mine too!
Hoffy- we’ll done Tx for fuller picture and context.