News Focus
News Focus
Followers 202
Posts 25627
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/03/2010

Re: VuBru post# 155788

Friday, 01/26/2018 1:05:49 PM

Friday, January 26, 2018 1:05:49 PM

Post# of 828000
There would have been facts to litigate under that scenario. I don’t doubt there was possible discussion of what reactions meant. There was no safety halt. It was a partial halt. Patients enrolled could continue. But most importantly, I am sure there’d have been enough of a record to continue the case that was dismissed for Failure to state a claim. That is the lowest standard of evidence intended to allow cases with only a vague “scintilla of evidence” to proceed. That they could not meet such a low standard is quite telling. Doesn’t mean there were not questions, but the shorts have a view on what the medical professionals SHOULD have determined, but apparently did not conclusively determine... I think that is and was the issue. Sure there may have been discussion and questions, but there was no evidence of such conclusions being made. It must be frustrating to them, and they keep coming at the same issue on bulletin boards, Twitter, blogs and even maybe opinion columns (leading Bloomberg to need to correct an article that referred to one of those columns). But opinions and questions did not amount to determinations necessarily, and thankfully and reasonably so for all but the interests of shorts IMHO.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NWBO News