Bouf, I respectfully disagree, at least to the extent you speak with absolute certainty. Unless one is part of Singer's legal team or inner circle, one is not in position to speak with absolute certainty as to whether this will impact the appeal outcome.
This is 'bet the company' litigation where through extraordinary judicial malfeasance in conjunction with gross negligence on the part of management and the attorneys (all things which will be dealt with in due course), the shareholders have been massacred to the tune of 75% of share value since the expanded label approval. No stone can be left unturned.
If helpful relevant information is presented to IR with a request to forward to counsel for review, then IR has a fiduciary duty to forward it, and counsel has a duty to review it. I am not talking about a document dump of multiple Message Board posts. Singer does not have time for that.
But a singular legal analysis from a well-respected articulate lawyer, and a comprehensive scientific analysis rivaling the Bhatt paper, at least warrant review and a Memorandum to Singer from an Associate. And if it is reviewed and analyzed, then there is a chance that it could have an effect on the final work product. Not a guarantee, but a chance, just as there is a chance, perhaps even a much better chance, that it will be ignored as you say.
I know if I was counsel I would welcome the outside contribution because good lawyers appreciate the value of outside eyes and a different perspective, even if that outside perspective is ultimately rejected.
