Fair point. I was not saying $.50 to $1.00 per share is likely to be proven. That was more of an aggressive upper-end assumption to show that even under a generous price-impact number, the surviving damages still do not support the multibillion-dollar figures some people suggest.
You may be right that the actual measurable impact for many trades could be pennies per share, depending on what the experts can tie to specific spoofing-date closing prices. The court’s language on proximity, loss causation, and long-term price effect is exactly why I think the damages are much narrower than the “stock never recovered” argument.
I would also slightly reframe the question of why the market makers would litigate if damages are modest. They did not choose the litigation. NWBO sued them. Their first move was to try to dismiss the case, and they were only partly successful. The court narrowed the claims but did not dismiss the entire case. At that point, the choice becomes whether to keep spending money on discovery, experts, and motion practice, or, if possible, settle and move on.
With Canaccord having settled, others may eventually make the same business decision. Some may already be exploring that path, since from our vantage point we only see what becomes public. But settlement activity alone does not necessarily suggest massive damages exposure, as some here hope. It may simply reflect the cost and risk of continued litigation versus the cost of settling.
I agree a nominal settlement by itself probably does not create a cottage industry. But the concern may be less about the final settlement amount and more about the process: surviving dismissal, forcing discovery, requiring expert price-impact analysis, and encouraging other small-cap companies to try the same strategy.
From NWBO’s side, the motivation to file may also go beyond the final damages number. They may want to recover whatever losses they can prove, but also deter future spoofing, create discovery pressure, and show shareholders they are challenging trading practices they believe harmed the company. So both sides can have reasons to litigate even if the eventual damages number is not enormous.
So I think we are in the same general area. The real number depends on what the experts can actually tie to the narrowed theory the court allowed. We’ll see.
Market Data 
Markets 
