EOM Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc. (IMUC)

[erostratus]

whatever, i'm not about to browse through the PRs of countless companies to find examples but let's say for the sake of argument that IMUC is the first one to use that kind of definition for enrollment: SEMANTICS WILL STILL NEVER EVER IN ONE MILLION YEARS BE PRECEDENTS FOR LAWSUITS.

what is your profession?, i'll bet my first born that you're sure as hell not in the legal field, i'm a 2L and i can tell you with the utmost confidence that there are only two scenarios in which a suit might have had the slightest chance: 1. if IMUC stated that they randomized 278 patients and 2.if IMUC stated that they enrolled 278 while never clarifying the actual number of randomized patients (here they might be proven guitly due to a purposeful omission). They did neither of these two. They've been very clear of the distribution and everyone and their grandmother knows that 124 patients were randomized into placebo and treamtment arms.
I consider the matter dropped.

Good luck, and be sure to check back in 6 months, as you said.