NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[exwannabe]

More on the "formula"

What is being asked for is an explanation of how NWBO calculated the prices they sold stock at. Per the R&R:

Neither in the FAC nor its opposition brief does Plaintiff explain what it means when it says that the “sale price was formulaically derived from the closing price.” In many instances in Plaintiff’s loss causation chart, the “Pricing Date” is several days or even weeks—as many as four weeks—prior to the date on which NWBO sold its shares. In other instances, there is a “Pricing Date” days or weeks after the date on which NWBO sold its shares. The formula being asked for is not how NWBO is calculating losses.

(Emphasis on after per Judge).,

It is the formula asserted by NWBO in paragraph 289 of the amended complaint (docket #95):

During the Relevant Period, there were Spoofing Episodes that occurred on of 1,171 – or nearly 34% – of the trading days. As demonstrated in the chart below, of Plaintiff’s 283 million shares of stock sold during the Relevant Period, more than 49 million shares were sold by Plaintiff where the sale price was formulaically derived from the closing price on dates where Spoofing Episodes occurred, such that a decline in the price on that day caused a decline in the price at which Plaintiff sold shares of NWBO

Looking at the table some of the pricing data is very odd. For example on 1/2/2018 they sold shares at $19 and $.33, both at least partially based on the Dec 18 close. OK, the $0.33 was obviously a mistake, the PPS was only $.22 the pricing date. But really, how can an obvious error this early in a table not be caught?

It is a few lines down when things fall apart though. On Feb 8m 2018 NWBO sold 1,129,804 shares at $.35 and the price of the sale was calculated based (at least partially) upon the closing price om Feb 23,27 and 28. That is somewhat difficult for most of us who cannot time travel.

Very likely the future date issue comes from when NWBO changed this table between the original and amended complaint. In the original the date was agreement date, but the dates never changed. Maybe changing column A back to agreement date on the summary lines and adding a transaction date to the detail lines resolves this. At which point they could assert some formula w/o the need for a DeLorean.

Have to wonder what else they have issues with here and why.