Complaint Analysis continued.
The other "battleground" will be NWBO's obligation to prove that the trading patterns did not occur by accident or inadvertence, but through purposeful bad faith/illegal trading or algo schemes. Paras 237-256 provide NWBO's theory of purposefully illegal trading.
Para 257 alleges that there is a statistically improbable likelihood that the patterns were not illegal. Another poster this morning pointed out that the lawsuit would have to engage experts. That is correct, and that is highly typical. Moreover, I suspect that with all of the examples in the Complaint at Paras 59-236, and others that will likely be presented if trial occurs, a juror is going to be annoyed to a very high degree by Defense "experts" whose testimony would be intended to tell the jurors that their commonsense interpretation of the dozens and dozens of examples is all wrong. Very difficult hill to climb which moreover is very likely to infuriate a jury against Defendants as to this question, which carries over to the entire defense.
Para 259 includes a multiple-page chart showing all alleged spoofing on 395 trading days through March 14, 2022. 100% bet this is Plaintiff's primary trial exhibit and blow-ups will sit in front of the jury on pedestals for days if Counsel is allowed.
Surprisingly, the P 259 chart does NOT include May 10 but ends on March 14, even tho the "Relevant Period" of the claim as defined by Plaintiff's counsel extends until August 1, 2022 (and likely will be extended as time progresses). The absence of May 10 is surprising since NWBO has had the data for a long enough period it would seem to have been able to apply the same analysis as to dates prior to March 14.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Paras 266-275 money damages. NWBO makes a claim that is curious to me but that's probably b/c i'm not an expert here - that NWBO was "unaware" of the specifics of Defendants' market manipulation when it sold the 49 MM shares. This clearly opens NWBO to discovery about "what NWBO knew and when."Paras 276- 281 seeks an injunction against spoofing. IMO this is not a serious claim bc (1) spoofing is already illegal, (2) there are monetary remedies if further spoofing occurs and (3) a judge is unlikely to be able to define spoofing with sufficient clarity that s/he would be comfortable with such an Order. But, again, i am wholly inexpert in the area of securities law (I know all about injunctions generally, that's not enough). Also, IMO, if this was a serious claim, a Preliminary Injunction would be sought - what's the point of getting an injunction after a jury trial that's 3 years away if it occurs at all? The absence of a prayer for a Preliminary Injunction can always be brought, but it's not there now.
GLTAL, patients and families.
AI
