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.
jesster- the measure of damages in the lawsuit as filed (currently plead) is the difference between the share price NWBO obtained when it sold shares into the market, and the hypothetical share price if no spoofing had occurred, during the period of time NWBO proves that illegal spoofing occurred. Yes that is a subjective and judgment-based determination rather than an objective calculation. But the law of damages allows the jury to make exactly those determinations. What is the value of a life cut short due to the negligence of a tortfeasor (civil wrongdoer). All NWBO has to do is present evidence that supports a verdict. This is where experts can and do offer
opinion evidence since, obviously, we cannot know what “would have happened” in the absence of spoofing, assuming the same is proven to the satisfaction of a jury.
Flipper, most civil lawsuits settle, yes absolutely. But both sides must do sufficient discovery to feel that they are able to determine the amount at risk (Defendants), or for a Plaintiff, potentially and reasonably likely to be recovered (obviously “reasonably likely” can be, in specific cases, an known/calculable amount, or an unknown and very material range of values).
I don’t mean to suggest that this case is more or less likely to settle than statistics suggest, only to explain the difference between a preliminary 12b6 motion and a post-discovery 56 motion, in the context of what inferences may reasonably be drawn.
PS Tx for the link- I’ll read it!!
Continued - spoofing. But it is wrong to conclude that Defendant MMs admit that spoofing occurred and it is a certainty that this allegation will be vigorously denied at the proper point in the case, and thereafter vigorously litigated.
After both parties have discovery, Defendant MMs may, if they think they have a chance to prove that spoofing did not occur BASED ON THE FACTS REVEALED IN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS, file a Rule 56 Motion. But the standard there is that if there are two sides to a factual dispute the Court must take the facts presented by the non-moving
party (NWBO) as true. So if there is any evidence of negligence in the accident hypothetical, or any evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that spoofing happened, in the NWBO example, the Court will DENY the defendant driver’s, or Defendant MMs’, Rule 56 motion. If that occurs, the case goes to trial absent a settlement, and the jury decides if spoofing did or did not occur.
Citadel spoofing non-denial: Many here are over-reading and misunderstanding the issues presented in the pre-motion letters to the court. The technicalities must be understood to interpret defendants’ letter.
At the present stage the question is, “Has NWBO ALLEGED facts that, if proven, it may prevail?” A simplified example could be where a car accident victim sues the driver, and alleges the driver was driving the car that caused the injuries, but fails to allege that the defendant driver was “negligent.” Because negligence is an element of the claim, the suit would be dismissed when the defendant filed a
motion saying the allegations, even if true, are insufficient for defendant to be liable
. But “disputed” alleged facts are not resolved at this stage, so if the victim simply alleged the driver had been negligent, that would for the purpose of the current (12b6) would be assumed to be true, and therefore, and importantly here, defendant would not deny negligence because such denial would be pointless.
Here, NWBO alleges spoofing. Just as in the above example, the Court must, by rule, ASSUME THAT SPOOFING OCCURRED. So in not denying spoofing Defendant MMs merely recognize such denial now would be pointless. After the motion is resolved in favor of NWBO, which will happen, Answers will be filed and those will deny that MMs spoofed. Thereafter discovery occurs and later a Rule 56 motion can test the spoofing allegation.
Hi could someone pls post info about Thursday presentation TIA
Either party can demand a trial by jury.
maverick_1 pls forgive if this is obvious but pls provide authority for assertion that Christian Firm has appeared as counsel or co-counsel TIA
senti I will be shocked if the case settles before discovery begins, or frankly, is completed. First, plaintiff’s counsel very likely expect to identify additional actionable trading violations. They are not going to settle until they have a reasonable view of all prospective damages. Second, the company has made it clear that it is bringing the case for the long haul - the initial claims are only the starting point. I expect that there were specific pre-retainer discussions wherein counsel have agreed to pursue the claims beyond discovery. Not to mention the client, not the law firm, has settlement authority. Very very shocked by any early settlement.
ap: the primary point of the lawsuit is to materially increase the risk to MMs for hammering the stock price. That’s been widely discussed here and of course if MMs wish to continue to engage in manipulation even after they have been sued I suppose that could happen per your theory. But I seriously doubt it.
“Management is laser-focused on getting necessary approvals.”
We’ve had lousy head/chest cold or flu with bronchitis but 6x Covid tests all negative. Get well soon.
IMO it’s a total who-can-outwait-who game. LP will not partner or sell without full value. BPs have no demands upon them from shareholders or patients or prescribers or anyone to do anything, much less bridge the likely rather large gap between her and their valuations. Frankly as I ponder the foregoing I don’t see approval changing BP positions - if the decision-making executives overpay they get skewered. If they wait until LPs valuation becomes clearly justified they just were being appropriately cautious. IMO since LP’s valuation is based on the
premise that we have patented a platform therapeutic not just across hard cancers but a multiplicity of other conditions or diseases I think it may be years before there’s a valuation meeting of the minds.
I am sure the valuation waiting dance is extremely typical in pharma/bios but i believe DC VAX is, right now at least, likely a singular change agent. Add to which our decision-makers are extraordinarily talented, brilliant and confident, and therefore, possessing of extraordinary determination and patience.
PM I would think she’d be giving you a lot of iron. Like, a 5-iron.
byg the company’s compassionate use and trials certification was recently renewed and Ms Powers mentioned that in connection with preparation of the manufacturing application.
BB heal well. Hopefully the ski season is not lost.
CO: the 10th. Reserved for the lowest of the low - ppl who profit from delaying efficacious medical treatments.
Thx flipper just seeing your excellent critique.
Doc - Lovely Holiday message of hope and progress. Exactly what I needed to read this Christmas Morning. Blessings of the season to all religious celebrants, and to all who are not!
FM Merry Christmas. I did not know about your personal experience with a friend with GBM, condolences. As to publicizing the issue I will do so for sure and as an active political contributor I will ensure that multiple reps and both state senators will be fully informed. To all our little ihub family regardless of POV i sincerely wish all the best for you and your families and friends. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas.
He cannot buy his parents another house with the funds in Swiss accounts that cannot be subpoenaed?
Know-Fear. Heck he’s already out on house arrest. I don’t really understand how $250 MM, large amount tho it is, secures compliance when the profit from the fraud appears to be a high multiple of that. While non-extraditable jurisdictions are somewhat limited, I’d personally be satisfied with sacrificing the bond amount and spending my life there with substantial wealth (I admit, an assumption but I’d bet it’s correct) as opposed to a penitentiary for a decade or two.
Crypto-knight-crook is gonna do 13-20 his co-fraudsters already flipped. His “IDK wtf happened?” is gonna do worse w a jury than “I am Steve Jobs with long blonde hair” liar Holmes. Privileged ppl who downright steal. What’s wrong with them?!
Captain: Happy Birthday!! From: A Fan!!
Gary - the problem with waiting for company comment is, of course, most likely there won’t be one. A bigger (oops) mistake would imo be to assume that if we hear nothing the tidbit or factoid is unimportant.
aek: Sticky-worthy post. I’d request that but doing so would make it less likely. PS: the market cap of such an enterprise just based on known facts must be in the moderate double-digit billions USD. Right? Best wishes to the ppl on the right side of things, you know who you are!!
PM sorry my friend I completely disagree. The ratification-thru-proxy might not get the case dismissed but the judge is t gonna waste much time on it thereafter. The proposed amendment of the complaint (likely to be allowed as a matter of course) is just going to extend things a bit I suspect.
Additional Proxy disclosure (12/16/22) sorry if already posted:
“The Company wishes to make clear: If the stockholder vote in connection with the upcoming Annual Meeting results in the ratification of the executive compensation and approval of the director compensation described in the Proxy, the Company plans to ask the court to dismiss the derivative action on the grounds, among others, that the stockholders have approved the compensation. Hence, stockholder approval of the executive and director compensation could potentially result in dismissal of the derivative action.”
Sorry I posted I didn’t realize the possibility this was an extension. I have some reason to hope there will be positive clarification tomorrow as I do not believe this issuance was anticipated by the company.
MIA granted UK
MIA granted.
Steady thanks so much this and your other substantive discussion about outcome measures and endpoints - clear and helpful. Best Regards.
Think Switzerland is the subject not Sweden. But all those EU “S” countries sound alike to my Michigan ears. OOPS - Swiss “say no to da EU, eh?!” Whatever…
GermanCol thank you once again for your careful attention to detail in exposing intentionally misleading posts that flood this site daily. I’ve said before but a significant part of my confidence in this investment is that none of the very thoughtful and calculated criticisms withstand scrutiny from you and the other knowledge posters. Best regards!
Moon: so one person asks you for authority to support your earlier statements and that convinces you that legal specifics are inappropriate here? OK I see …. I join JB in simply suggesting that most here try to add useful information and readers need to evaluate for themselves. And, I found the substantive portion of your post useful, the personal opinion, not so.
Jim maybe I missed something did a party in NWBO v MMs ask for a longer date on something? I wouldn’t have thought Defs answer was due yet but I’ve not calendared anything. Tx
Good joke JS. Pretty accurate in my 43 years litigating.
Yes got called
Fireman - oops Dodd-Frank allows treble damages. I’ll need to look further unclear if that’s to a private plaintiff or through administrative enforcement.
Fireman - spoofing damages - for Non-Insider trading that violates Section 10b5 of the 1934 Act only lost profit damages (difference between sale price and hypothetical non-manipulated correct price) and consequential damages (brokerage fees and similar) are recoverable. For illegal insider trading including tipped trading on insider (non-public) information, treble damages are recoverable by statute tho i do not believe those are properly referred to as punitive since they are statutory.
kabunushi I think you have it about right.