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.
They are not late by any measure. And you know it.
BB, the Harrington and NW cases are not assigned to the same Judge/Magistrats:
Harrington:
Judge: Lorna Gail Schofield
Magistrate: Valerie Figueredo
NW:
Judge: Gregory Woods
Magistrate: Gary Stein
"Magistrate Judges’ Important Role in Settling Cases"
https://www.jamsadr.com/files/uploads/documents/articles/denlow-magistrate-judges-fedlawyer-2014-may-jun.pdf
If it were really as clear cut as you pretend it is, wouldn't that make for a really easy and quick decision for them? Like days or weeks? There'd be no need for site visits, or inspections, or digging into the primary documents, or any of the time-consuming parts of the MAA process. They could just read the conclusion pages and say, as you have said, that since there's no control there's no approval. Certainly they could've be done with that by the end of phase 1, by sending an RFI that would have questions and requests that - according to you - would be unanswerable and/or have no meaningful answers that could make any difference. They would've been done at the end of phase 1. Seems to me like they're giving it more consideration than that.
It would be misleading if the axis labels were incorrect, or if they were not labeled at all. But the axes are labeled and the axis labels are not inccorrect. You may have made misunderstood the chart, but that does make the chart misleading.
Did it seem weird to you?
The trading from 3 pm on seemed weird to me.
Three 1-share trades in the last minute.
each of these will have a bigger effect if the MTD has been denied
Are you suggesting that someone has posted something online that they know is not factually correct and yet they haven't taken any steps to correct it, even though their readers might be misdirected by what was posted, and some of those readers might even change their behavior in a way that benefits the poster? You should look into this deeper, there might even be a way for such a poster to make a living doing so.
Don't know that they'd announce it, but they'd stop listing it in the prime position under the heading 'Current Investees & Partners'
Their website, https://ghkco.com/, dated today states: "Our most notable investment as of May 2022 is a revolutionary BioTech company that we believe has just accomplished a major breakthrough in cancer with its personalized immunotherapy vaccines - Northwest Biotherapeutics" Seems nothing has changed or requires an update so no need for you to worry.
This one will be PR'd (or co-PR'd) by MHRA itself.
Like this one:
https://www.cidara.com/news/cidara-therapeutics-announces-approval-of-rezzayo-by-the-mhra-for-the-treatment-of-invasive-candidiasis-in-adults/
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rezzayo-approved-to-treat-adult-patients-with-invasive-candidiasis
JT look at 720391 from this morning
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175093898
You mean these?
https://nwbio.com/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-marketing-authorization-applications-submitted-uk-mhra-dcvax-l-glioblastoma/
https://nwbio.com/northwest-biotherapeutics-moves-from-optimization-of-flaskworks-prototype-to-fabrication-of-gmp-compliant-units-for-installation-validation-and-final-testing-prior-to-regulatory-certification/
https://nwbio.com/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-exclusive-in-license-of-portfolio-of-dendritic-cell-technology-and-intellectual-property/
DJ, to add to what you've said here, we'll all know of an approval before that MHRA link is updated, because these linked Summary PDFs are not how applicants are notified that their application has granted.
The Summary PDFs are posted online about a week in arrears following each 2-week reporting period closes. The Summary PDFs list/summarize all approvals that happened during that previous 2-week period.
But these Summary PDFs are not how Applicants find out that their application was granted. Instead, Applicants are notified 'in real time,' meaning that the sponsor is notified directly on (or before) the grant date that is listed in the second column of these Summary PDFs that you linked to (i.e., not the date that the PDF is posted, but the grant date listed in column 2 of the PDF).
To illustrate, here is one recent example where both the sponsor (link) and the MHRA (link) issued a press release on the day of grant (1/29/24), but the Summary PDF which includes notice of the 1/29/24 grant did not post to that link until 2/8/24:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c50417cc433b000ca90ad2/Marketing_authorisations_granted_15_January_to_31_January_2024.pdf
These Summary PDFs are posted every two weeks (about 1 week in arrears) to provide notice to the public about what MHRA has granted, but these Summary PDFs are not how the MHRA communicates grants to its applicants. NWBO will know about the grant (and they will tell us and the world), about 1-3 weeks before the Summary PDF listing the DCVAX granted is posted.
93 days today. Could be any day now.
Maybe he posted it without attribution. The original document can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1ffadtt/comment/lmyrykv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
What's new here? Batch certification?
The last time, Defendant's filed their Answer on 9/27/23 (along with a request for oral arguments which were then held on 11/14/23) and Magistrate Stein issued his R&R on 12/29/23. So there were 93 days between Defendants answer and the last R&R (with oral arguments happening during this time).
This time, Defendant's filed their Answer on 6/14/24 (along with a request for oral arguments, which was denied, indicating that the court felt it could rule on the briefs alone with no further need to hear from the parties). It has been 86 days since 6/14/24.
So if the Magistrate were to follow the same timing from Defendant's answer, then we could expect the next R&R by 9/15/24.
However, a big factor that we have no insight into is what other work is taking the court's time and attention since Defendant's answer was filed. Other unrelated case schedules will overlap with NW's and affect the timeline in NW's case. Plus, Magistrate Stein had only recently joined the court the last time, and so may have had more time available in his calendar as compared with this time, now that time has passed to fill up his docket with additional assignments. Although this time, the open question(s) - loss causation - is more limited/focused, and so could perhaps take less time. But as others have pointed out, it took about 8 months in the Harrington case for the court to issue its ruling.
not yet
RRH
26B
Wow, this takes the story that some already know out of the realm of anonymous, self-interested internet postings and organizes it in a more permanent, legitimate place with citations to primary documents and information for anyone who wants to understand the story better
If NW = 1, and AV = 1,
then NWAV = ?
First one took 6.5 weeks. This round we are in week 11. The MTD decision in Harrington took 8 months. Timing also largely depends on what other items on the docket are taking the court's time.
Beartrap:
CHM doesn't do the legwork for MHRA or conduct inspections or gather evidence to present to the MHRA. It's the other way around. CHM is a committee comprised of experts that are consulted by MHRA (sometimes) and advise MHRA utilizing their subject matter expertise. See below. All of the bullets start with advising/considering. More like an FDA Adcom. Whatever the advice of the CHM, MHRA has the authority to make the decision.
About 0.385
Two 500k trades just now?
You're referring to a default rule that can be modified in almost any way by contract.
https://extranet.who.int/prequal/vaccines/ctd-preparation-submission
https://www.ich.org/page/ctd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Technical_Document
https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/resource/guidance/common-technical-document-ctd
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/electronic-regulatory-submission-and-review/electronic-common-technical-document-ectd
I agree, most likely this week or next, depending on what else is taking the court's time. Tomorrow will be 6 weeks. Last time was 6 weeks and 3 days.
Watch this space: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66579590/northwest-biotherapeutics-inc-v-canaccord-genuity-llc/
Today is 5 weeks since the briefing package was complete. Last R&R was issued on a Friday around 1:30 pm, 6 weeks and 3 days after the briefing package was complete.
If someone defrauded you of only 300k, would you just shrug it off? If it really is only 300k should we all just ignore that? Is a showing of only 300k in damages enough to be allowed to proceed through to discovery? Does additional evidence exist somewhere, currently unavailable to plaintiff, that would support a calculation that exceeds 300k?
It may take months and months to reach a settlement or the conclusion of the trial, but the knowledge that they're heading to trial but for a settlement will be known on the day the MTD is denied.