NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

The problem is that various requirements make many of these things irrelevant to what we’re discussing or unlikely to be useful to a plaintiff except in keeping a matter alive in court, but often the standards and requirements to prove make most cases not winnable for plaintiffs.

I posted a link from one of the very good law firms on these subjects the other day. It went through the various kinds of cases, the standards, and with enough detail to see that most of what is discussed here is not a real and winnable case, ultimately, and therefore only useful for nuisance suits, at best.

Some rules only apply, that some people discuss, because of certain specific exchange rules that at this time do not apply to NWBO. And as I’ve mentioned before, if there was a mandatory disclosure rule, which is not always as generic as a basic reader if these articles might think.

There is a lot of general nonsense that is said and spoken about that is “best practice”, to avoid litigation. But it doesn’t automatically mean a company would actually lose such a case or that they actually had a duty to disclose or update as suggested here. They are broad rules, and even where one might have spoken generically to a “securities lawyer”, one might not know enough detail or told them enough detail for them to know why, for instance, a company might choose silence versus additional and often unnecessary disclosure.

The reality is, these rules are more Swiss cheese, than what some who are from alternative legals systems might think and might be predisposed to hearing and understanding given their legal training in a different kind of system.