NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[The Danish Dude]

Great walk through Hoffmann. Plaintiffs refer to the plead of loss causation made in the Gamma Traders lawsuit also in the second circuit.

This article is about that.

https://callagylaw.com/2023/03/10/pleadings-in-a-complaint-can-make-or-break-your-case/AC

Inputting Hoffmanns text into ChatGBT and pointing to the article above, to get AI's view on the pleading and the arguments:

The defendants in the NWBO vs Canacord lawsuit appear to have made a concerted effort to address the judge's feedback regarding the pleading of loss causation. The summary you provided indicates several key points:

Response to the Report and Recommendation (R&R): The defendants filed objections to almost the entire R&R, challenging its findings and recommendations on various elements, including the element of loss causation. This shows their intent to comprehensively address the issues raised by the Magistrate Judge.

Detailing the Objections: The defendants provided specific objections to the R&R's findings, particularly concerning the market manipulation claim and the use of public OTC Link data. This level of detail indicates they are seriously considering the judge's feedback and providing counterarguments.

Application of Legal Standards: Both

Judge Stein and the defendants reference the Gamma Traders case for the standard to plead loss causation. They seem to be actively engaging with the legal standards necessary to establish their case, specifically focusing on two theories: temporal proximity and long-term price impact.

Temporal Proximity Theory: The defendants seem to have provided detailed information regarding the transaction date, number of shares sold, sale price, and number of spoofing episodes to support the temporal proximity theory. They argue that the sale prices of certain shares were directly influenced by the spoofing activities, demonstrating a close temporal link.

Long-Term Price Impact Theory: They also contend that the spoofing had a lasting adverse effect on the market price of NWBO's stock. To support this, they reference the work of a Nobel Prize-winning economist, suggesting a sophisticated and thought-through approach to establishing loss causation over a longer period.

Addressing Specific Points in the R&R: The defendants challenge the R&R's requirement for a detailed formula connecting spoofing episodes and stock sale prices. They assert that such a level of specificity is not mandated by the relevant legal rule (Rule 8) and that their complaint already provides this connection.

Incorporation of Academic Research: The reference to Dr. Milgrom's report demonstrates their attempt to ground their arguments in academic literature, which might strengthen their case regarding the long-term impact of spoofing on stock prices.

In conclusion, the defendants in the NWBO vs Canacord lawsuit appear to have made a significant effort to address the judge's feedback on pleading loss causation. They have detailed their objections to the R&R, applied relevant legal standards, provided supporting evidence and academic research, and have challenged the R&R on specific points. This suggests a comprehensive and strategic approach to meet the judge's requirements and strengthen their position in the lawsuit.

The article from Callagy Law discusses the importance of proper pleadings in a lawsuit, using the Gamma Traders case as a reference. In Gamma Traders, the court emphasized the necessity for a plaintiff to establish a direct connection between the defendant's wrongful actions and the plaintiff's injury. This means that speculative claims or broad allegations are insufficient. Instead, detailed factual allegations are required to show how the defendant's actions negatively impacted the plaintiff. This principle is critical in the NWBO vs Canacord lawsuit, where the plaintiffs must clearly demonstrate how the alleged market manipulation directly caused their losses. The article underscores the importance of detailed and fact-specific pleadings to survive a motion to dismiss, which is directly relevant to the plaintiff's strategy in addressing loss causation based on the Gamma Traders precedent.

Based on the detailed arguments presented by the plaintiffs in the NWBO vs Canacord lawsuit, particularly their focus on the two theories of loss causation (temporal proximity and long-term price impact), and their efforts to align these arguments with the legal standards established in cases like Gamma Traders, it seems they have made a substantial effort to meet the necessary legal thresholds for their case. Their detailed factual allegations, reference to academic research, and specific challenges to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) suggest a well-prepared response to the judge's concerns. However, whether this will be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and proceed to discovery will ultimately depend on the judge's assessment of the adequacy and relevance of these pleadings in meeting the legal standards for loss causation. The legal nuances and specific facts of the case will play a significant role in this determination.