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.
Since this “lawsuit” stick is being swung around, can you explain what is your cause of action? What are your damages and what remedy do you plan seek?
The savvy defense attorney will paper the Plaintiff to the tune of $25k before they even see the inside of a courtroom.
The law is a double edged sword. A good attorney will let the client know that bringing a lawsuit will expose the client to a potential counterclaim in the jurisdiction of the defendant’s choice. Malicious prosecution, Abuse of process… If plaintiff attorneys are not licensed to practice in defendant’s jurisdiction, then it would be in the plaintiff’s best interest to retain new attorneys. Now plaintiff has 2 sets of attorneys on the clock. However, maybe Plaintiff can avoid the state jurisdiction issue and make it a Federal issue to kick it up to Federal Court. But now we need attorneys who handle Federal cases.
I do not believe the defense attorneys were sloppy and simply forgot to Shepardize their case law. They had a difficult task and a likely an obscenely high meter, so run it out and force the other team to make the play. Or maybe they just tossed in the towel and handed the MTD to the JV team of 2 first year associates led by a 3rd year- still billable hours. In any event, the public policy defense they offer as an alternative is laughable
When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the law; when neither is on your side, argue public policy.
“Defendants resort to unsubstantiated scare tactics of an impending “flood” of “frivolous lawsuits” ?that would upend “the entire U.S. equity market system” if Plaintiff’s claims are sustained”
The public policy defense argues that Citadel has been such a bad actor for so long that it is now too big to fail?? Talk about tossing everything against the wall to see what sticks. I salute them for being willing present this at oral argument in front a judge while keeping a straight face.
The merits of the arguments will not turn on the existence or absence of the footnotes. I believe the defendant attorneys are the intended audience and the purpose of the footnotes is to put them on notice that the clock is running, so they best set aside the usual civil procedure gamesmanship and Motions for Continuance and come to the table to negotiate in good faith.
So why bother including the footnotes at all? 1) Damages: it is one thing to violate security laws with a pre-revenue biotech versus spoofing a company that went on to develop an FDA approved cancer treatment. The cost to settle will only increase with regulatory agency approval(s).
2) Optics at a jury trial: Ask how many members of the jury have lost family or friends to cancer. Remind the jury that Citadel had such a profitable 2022 that Ken Griffin treated 10,000 staff and their families to party at Walt Disney World in Florida for three days of celebrations.
Well done! Might I respectfully suggest directing a letter to Jill Biden as well since GBM is a personal matter for the Biden family and there is a better chance Jill will receive the message before Joe?
Please provide the case/ docket number for the cases you are referring to.
Which jurisdiction is it?
Are you able to articulate the damages sought?
Interesting interpretation. Looks like they are still looking for the first client
It is good to take in different opinions, but ultimately you are responsible for your own decisions. Not everything on the internet is accurate.
Read both complaints and decide for yourself.
What are your thoughts on the complaint and/ or cross complaint?
Nice finish today
Interesting write up… however am I not sure about the accuracy of many statements.
- In response to a Complaint one files an Answer and does not address the points in a PR
- Evidence is only produced through Discovery and not presented in a Complaint or Answer
- Yes, Mens Rea refers to the intent with which the defendant acted but Mens Rea is an element of Criminal law, NOT Civil / Contract law; eg Murder 1 vs Murder 2 vs Manslaughter… elements are the same for all 3 with the distinguishing difference being the Mens Rea, or intent..
- No summary judgement possible because there are facts in contention; read FRCP Rule 56 if you want more details
- the Court does not prepare for anything; plaintiffs and defendants prepare. Plus in this case RLFTF requested trial by jury
- agree with the assessment that this will take years to resolve if given to the court system
I am likely in the minority but I still think the entire disagreement is fabricated to provide a pretext for picking up retail shares. Too many things do not add up, especially the timing and even the request for a trial by jury (adds additional time and expense to the trial when RLFTF wants a speedy resolution due to their demands of specific performance). PLUS if I were NRXP I would start by presenting the jury with the fact that RLFTF is trying to stop NRXP from making a covid vaccine because RLFTF prefers people to catch COVID and get sick so that RLFTF can sell more product- imagine leading off with this image of RLFTF to the jury members
SOP reply. Why concede anything? Burden of proof lies with RLFTF (plaintiff)
Aviptadil is unique with its multi-dimensional MOA and is untouchable. It is designed by evolution is in a league of its own. The two companies need makes these issues disappear and marketing needs to rename it “Idontwanttodiefromcovid”. Easy to remember and easy for patients to request
Disagreement withdrawn. Original disagreement was to the timing of NRXP issuing a public statement re: complaint but I was thinking in light of the rules of civil procedure and not as Mels accurately pointed out, SEC rules.
Legal is probably billing $1000/hr so just the legal fees will run up to $200k before they even get to trial. What a waste of time and resources just to posture but when the market is valued in the millions if not billions then it’s a just a part of the gamesmanship
Thank you for the addition. I was thinking civil procedure and not SEC rules.
Respectfully disagree. If served with a Complaint NRXP has 20 or 30 days to file an Answer depending on the method served. PR is not indicated at this time since we can expect the standard “…categorically deny the validity of the entire baseless complaint and will zealously defend…” Then NRXP will follow with the usual counter/ cross complaints and the start of the pretrial games. We are looking at a year or two of depositions before we even get to discovery. (Maybe even longer given the reality of how backed up the courts are at this time)
I find the entire situation confusing as to the timing and requested remedies since to date damages are speculative and we may have an EUA answer even before NRXP files their answer. If EUA is approved then we can expect additional approvals by all other regulatory bodies of the world and many of the claims will be dismissed (unless RLFTF wants to prove how they are damaged by NRXP’s contracts with distributors and manufactures without which EUA approval is impossible), yet if EUA is denied then NRXP will be nothing more than a fledgling biotech with no revenue (ie Judgement Proof).
It is in RLFTF’s best interest to resolve the issue quickly if one of the remedies they seek is specific performance yet by requesting a jury trial RLFTF just added months to the pretrial process. In light of RLFTF’s interest in a speedy resolution, I would have liked to see RLFTF have a cleaner complaint with only their strongest arguments instead of using the “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” method because RLFTF themselves now have to argue each point which translates to time (stuff about China? Really? Legal relevance? No legal remedy for hurt feelings)
I am invested in both RLFTF and NRXP. I am not favoring either side at this time since we have only the allegations from one side and need to response/ allegations from the other side and then we need also to see the evidence produced through depositions and discovery.
Another point of interest (even ironic humor) is that RLFTF is seeking attorney fees and courts costs which in itself is a violation of agreement for the two entities to share legal fees and costs equally.
On the surface this entire situation seems like a big pile of stupidity all around and completely avoidable. My opinion only
Very nice! Wonder if this was the info shared in the most recent FDA request?
Excellent point. Done
What a steaming bowl of speculative word soup
One negative aspect of an ADR is the annual ADR fee of 1-3 cents per share. Not a huge deal @ 50:1 and better than paying the foreign transaction fee each time but still an annual liability nonetheless
Following. Solid questions. I too would like to know the answers
About 2 months ago I brought up the issue of a possible conflict between granting EUA prior to completing or at least completing enrollment for the Activ3b trial. Y@h00! MB pumpers did not appreciate the question and had it deleted after a few ad hominem attacks.
I do not understand why, if EUA were to granted, anyone would enroll in a trial with a chance to be in the trial arm which did not receive Aviptadil. I can see the government wanting the Activ3b trial completed because 1) they have already sunk a bunch of money into the trial 2) they need to have data to support replacing Rem as SOC, and 3) Public perception of FDA doing sufficient DD by approving EUA based on a ‘large’ study. The general public has no clue what p-values are but they are used to hearing about BP trials with 10,000 participants. My opinion and I hope I am completely wrong with EUA ‘next week’ so that I can sell the warrants to put into other investments but I am here for the long run regardless.
Unless it is a binding arbitration agreement it doesn’t have much teeth. And even with cases of arbitration I have seen it take a year for the sides to even agree on the arbitration firm and then they will have the same back and forth to decide on the individual arbitrar - all part of the chess game
Not to take anything away from Ms Jean but an IP attorney is infinitely more important prior to the creation and signing of the contract so hopefully she had input at that stage because it’s hard to polish a turd afterwards
No, I did not state that I believe there is any legal action pending. My position is that 1) we do not know enough facts (and IF there were to be litigation in 99% of the time there needs to be damages first) and 2) I believe everything will be resolved; i.e. no legal action. The only ‘winners’ are the attorneys and few people want to leave a decision up to judge where the verdict can go either way despite how strong of a position each side feels they have
Respectfully disagree on the pending legal action. I do agree that issue at hand has more to do with business law/ contract rather than an IP issue.
We do not have enough info about what each party knows or believes so this is all conjecture. I am not advocating for either side but looking at this from both a legal and practical perspective.
Once EUA is granted there is no reason for NRXP to withhold data any longer and I expect the transfer to happen expeditiously. Practically, if there is any legal action NRXP will be the winner regardless of who legally prevails. A good attorney will win your case but a great attorney will keep your opponent tied up in court indefinitely. There are multiple ways to legally delay civil procedure and a savvy attorney can even ‘win’ by forcing your opponent to outspend you; e.g. I can file a motion which takes me 1 hour draft but will take you 3 hours to respond to and you must respond or default. Which brings up the issue of attorneys fees and I am not aware of what the provision is (if there is one), also we do not know of other required resolution procedures (mediation, arbitration, etc…) which must be first exhausted. From a practical point any litigation will take at least 1-2 years before it sees the inside of a courtroom. Since getting the data is time sensitive for RLFTF any delay is not optimal.
Legally, “a contract is a contract” sometimes. Courts are always full so there is so such thing as an ‘iron clad’ contract. Yes contracts usually contain the ‘four corners clause’ expressing that everything has been reduced to writing and modifications to agreement only by written consent of both parties and so forth. But if there was a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of conditions upon which the contract was entered (either accidental or intentional) or terms of the conditions in the contract then we have a basis for the attorneys to argue. We do not even know what (if any) are the agreed upon definitions or conditions for performance; e.g. define “drug” or what is the timeline for when data is to be shared. We also don’t know if there is a clause for liquidated damages since courts very rarely reward speculative damages. So basically we don’t know enough to make any informed comments on the outcome of any hypothetical litigation. Even if we did somehow know everything about the contract, it is not possible for any contract to contain all the details to account for all situations. Rarely is anything all or nothing and the attorneys will argue material/ immaterial breach and degrees of partial performance. And this is all before we even look at legal principles of unjust enrichment.
Right now everything depends on the EUA. After EUA RLFTF may or may not have a claim for shared info. RLFTF will definitely have a claim when it is time to share the profits and NRXP fails to split the profits accordingly. This also goes to illustrate the point that the money goes to NRXP first who then shares with RLFTF.
There is no chance of an injunction because it would hurt both companies (no revenue) and a court would not allow an injunction on the principle of the greater public good (also no way for RLFTF to satisfy the elements required for an injunction).
My opinion is that it will be sorted out without going to court. Luckily it’s just a matter of money so the answer is moving a few points one way or the other. But first things first and we need the EUA. All my opinion. GLTA
To add to your extensive list of why we are seeing recovery with Aviptadil and why we are covered for all coronaviruses now and into the future:
“Inhibitory effects of aviptadil on the SARS-CoV-2 nsp10/ nsp16 protein complex” (Feb 2021)
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which emerged in late 2019, causes COVID-19, a disease that has been spreading rapidly worldwide. In human lung epithelial cells and monocytes, RLF-100 (aviptadil) has been found to inhibit the RNA replication machinery of SARS-CoV-2, which includes several non-structural proteins (nsp) that play essential roles in synthesizing and replicating viral RNA. This virus is unique in requiring nsp10 and nsp16 for methyltransferase (MTase) activity. This enzyme is essential for RNA stability, protein translation, and viral ability to escape the host's immune recognition. Therefore, we aimed to use bioinformatics tools to analyze aviptadil's inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 nsp10/nsp16 complex. We present a comprehensive, in silico-generated picture showing how aviptadil may interact with the nsp complex. Specifically, our model predicts how the initial binding of aviptadil to nsp10 and nsp16 may occur. This knowledge can assist drug development efforts against SARS-CoV-2 by providing more target information against nsp16.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-191980/v1
The timing of this public ‘dispute’ is very suspect. If Dr JJ truly intended malfeasance then why choose to raise the issue at this time? Dr JJ could just play nice for now since there is nothing to lose or gain until EUA. With EUA all the checks coming in (revenue) will be made out to NRXP and not RLFTF. Dr JJ could simply do nothing until months later when it is time to cut the check for RLFTF’s share and then decide to raise the issue since NRXP exercises control of the money.
Continuing down this particular rabbit hole, any thoughts as to Dr J’s motivation for not providing all the data to the FDA? It’s not his first rodeo so he should be familiar with what is required although granted this may be his first EUA application. I still think that the FDA is slow walking the process since the requested additional information is independent to the answer of each preceding query so not sure why the FDA couldn’t simply ask for all the information in one request.
Agreed - the entire ‘dispute’ seems to be orchestrated kabuki theater and just a pretext for depressing the SP. GEM is the common denominator and they are not in the business of losing money. Just need to focus on the big picture which has not changed.
Funny how all the keyboard physicians are suddenly keyboard attorneys now, and business law / patent experts nonetheless. Doubt the majority has even served jury duty…
Are you even invested in NRXP? Honesty and transparency!
The FDA does not evaluate business plans when considering EUA applications
Please educate yourself on the conditions and grounds upon which an injunction may be granted as the only form of relief available. Of course you know which court has jurisdiction on this matter? Mediation, arbitration, or binding arbitration have been exhausted?
In the immortal words of Gold 5
“Stay on target, stay on target…”
An unexpected but promising source of revenue. Not as sophisticated as an mRNA vaccine but an elegant plug-and-play platform for presenting antigens.
Agreed. Holding commons long and trading warrants. The show will start soon. NRXP
Our village idiot is having difficulties multitasking with all the different aliases
Thank you for the correction on the condition for warrants to be called: >$21 for 21 of 30 days
Just curious but have you (or anyone else) exercised warrants yourself? About how long does the process take?
I normally only trade warrants and far I have avoided exercising warrants for personal tax reasons since the difference between the strike price and the price of a share, minus the cost basis, is taxable income and not a capital gain.
I am invested in both commons and warrants at about 25% commons and 75% warrants. Only time will tell whether it was wiser to add more commons or warrants but I chose to add more commons last week because we likely saw the last opportunity to add commons in the 11s. I plan to hold all the commons long (+3 years) as I hope to see bigger gains but over a longer period of time (company product development/ revenue + long cap gains tax).
The leverage of warrants should provide a higher return. My impression is that the warrants will be called as soon as possible (condition: SP > $18 for 21 of 30 days) because one reason the management chose to use BRPA as a SPAC was due to the high insider ownership. If so then the warrants may not be around long enough to benefit from inhaled Aviptadil let alone dry powder pocket puff inhalers, the Brilife vaccine platform, long-hauler COVID therapy, other non-COVID pulmonary conditions, or the depression med. Warrants did not track commons when NRXP was BRPA however the float was a ridiculously micro at the time. My gut tells me maybe I should’ve gone with more warrants to sell for commons but the die has been cast. My opinion. GLTA
Thank you both Tiger and Powerwalker for sharing your insights and strategies. I have limited experience trading warrants and I appreciate the information you freely share.
I ended up picking up more commons even though I could’ve gotten 1.8 warrants for every 1 common share. My thought is to trade the warrants and hold the commons long enough to see the results of the depression drug, the Brilife vaccine, and the additional applications for Aviptadil in coming years. I think the warrants may be called sooner than later once the price pops after EUA. I am invested in both commons and warrants since the market never seems to do what I expect. In my hindsight portfolio I picked up more warrants which i then traded for commons after the EUA pop on the warrants. GLTA
I completely agree with you. Hence I see the private placement a result of a time-sensitive need for funds or possibly even a need to grease some wheels- I don’t see the dilution as a backup plan but all my opinion. I’m just trying to figure out whether the commons or warrants are a better value at this point. Hope we see some fireworks sooner than later
Conversely, if you were the position to exchange $30m for shares, would you want $30m worth of shares now or after EUA?
Reality is an opportunity before it is a hinderance. I did not think we would be able to add at these prices again - happy to DCA today. GLTA
As often occurs when trying to coordinate multiple people, Team Wilma often gets their notes mixed up and are thus subject to inconsistencies in their stories thus they don’t provide facts. Strange that Team Wilma seems to have forgotten their internal memo that ALL CAPS IS FOR SHOUTING AT MANAGEMENT and normal font is for communicating with others on the message boards. Also strange is that Team Wilma appears on non-RLFTF boards under constantly changing aliases when Team Wilma claims to be invested in RLFTF only.