Here's what shows that lawsuit is complete BS:
"Worries over public communication about a stock split are also highlighted in the investor lawsuit. The suit claims it was a 4 for 1 split which gave Diwan and Seymour 54% control of the company, but in SEC filings for the June 2010 period the company stated it was a 2 for 1 split. Brambell claims the company latter updated the SEC filings in 2012 to inform shareholders that it was a 3.5 for 1 split without acknowledging the former statements. "
NNVC did not DO the split in 2010. It waited until 2013 and changed the ratio to fit CURRENT conditions (and did ALL of the appropriate filings at the appropriate times.
There was no reason whatsoever NNVC was obligated to "acknowledge teh former statements". It notified shareholders of the upcoming split with the CURRENT ratio that was used, made all appropriate filings in a timely manner with full and complete disclosures of all RELEVANT and required informmation.
ANOTHER GROSS DISTORTION:
"Diwan cashed out his early investment in NanoViricides two years ago and used the proceeds to buy land in West Haven, Conn., to develop a government certified research lab for NanoViricides. The building will only be leased by the biotech company, yet the company is spending money to build it out and has pledged $2.5 million of collateral towards completion of the project. "
The building is an ALREADY EXISTING BUILDING!!! "Building it out" is an obscure term used to confuse RENNOVATIONS with actual building the place. Companies leasing buildings that require such extensive rennovations as the manufacturing facility requires ALWAYS pay for the rennovations. ALWAYS (and the people filing this complete joke of a lawsuit know that and know most investors will know that which is why they use such an obscure term as "build out" instead of the STANDARD term "rennovate". Anyone who follows the company knows that Diwan is planning on making much of his money by contracting for the production of the drug. Since this is a new technology, who better than the inventor/developer of the drug to do the production?
"The PIPE was chosen as a way to raise capital instead of private investor funds with long-term investors who would have a Rule 144 restriction"
Companies reject private funding all the time and use public funding instead. Most companies greatly PREFER public funding because the terms of venture capitalists (often known as "vulture capitalistic") are notoriously onerous! Kudos to Dr Seymour for finding better funding. Since WHEN does someone declining to accept proposed funding a grounds for lawsuit!
RE: Dr Seymour and "Silva Diagnostics" A google for "Silva Diagnostics turns up ZERO (except for a half dozen sentences that end with some Dr Silva's name (must be many thousands) and the first word of the next is "Diagnostics" Actually they all link to the SAME article "Towards relation discovery for diagnostics" By a S. D'Silva.
This is not remotely a serious lawsuit intended to go to court, IMHO. It is complete BS, creating the appearance of clams with no substance whatsoever behind them. IMHO it is most likely for the purpose of being used for newsletters to bash the stock with after it's been shorted and then to be withdrawn before any court proceedings take place. I cannot imagine any court taking such claims seriously.
To quote Pauli: this is SO far off base it's "not even wrong". Nothing but unadulterated and willful distortion.
===============
Here's an example of a company that successfully fought and won a multi million dollar judgement against such tactics
Overstock filed a lawsuit against the hedge fund Rocker Partners in 2005, for libel, unfair business practices and tortious interference, saying it colluded with a research firm, Gradient Analytics, in short-selling the company while paying Gradient Analytics to publish negative reports about Overstock.com and supplying pre-publication copies to Rocker. Naked short-selling was not alleged in that suit.[32] In a conference call with analysts in August 2005, a day after the suit was filed, Byrne said that "there's been a plan since we were in our teens to destroy our stock, drive it down to $6--$10 ... and even a plan for how the company would then get whacked up." He said that the conspirators were part of a "Miscreants Ball," headed by a "Sith Lord," who he refused to identify but said "he's one of the master criminals from the 1980s." Byrne said the conspiracy included hedge funds, journalists, investigators, trial lawyers, the SEC, and Eliot Spitzer."[33]
Rocker Partners, renamed Copper River Management, filed a counterclaim against Overstock in November 2007, alleging overstatement of profits, false projections, and misrepresentations about the company's ventures.[34] Copper River also alleges that Byrne tried to silence critics by suing them.[35][36][37][38] A portion of this suit was settled out of court on October 13, 2008, when Overstock.com and Gradient dropped the claims against each other after Gradient retracted allegations that Overstock's reporting methods did not comply with rules established by the FASB, stated they believed Overstock.com complied with GAAP standards, and that three directors were independent according to NASD standards, and apologized.[39][40] Byrne has said the apology and settlement "represents a great step forward in our case",[40] while Copper River's attorney stated that "If somehow this improved Overstock’s case, then Gradient would admit to doing something wrong and they haven’t.", and that he expected the settlement to help Copper River's case.[41]
On Dec. 8, 2009, it was announced that Copper River had reached an out of court settlement with Overstock. As part of the agreement, Copper River, which closed in December 2008, agreed to pay Overstock $5 million.[42] In a letter to his shareholders, Patrick Byrne said, "The good guys won". Copper River said in a statement that it continued to deny Overstock's allegations. Copper River managing general partner Marc Cohodes said "Although settlement deprives us of the ability to disprove Overstock's case and prosecute our counterclaims, we decided that the litigation costs did not justify passing up a practical way to end four-and-half years of meritless litigation by Overstock."[43][44]
In February 2007, Overstock.com launched a $3.5 billion lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and other large Wall Street firms, alleging a "massive illegal stock market manipulation scheme" involving naked short selling. Among its allegations, Overstock stated that since at least January 2005, naked short selling has accounted for large portions of Overstock stock, in some cases exceeding the 23.4 million total shares outstanding.[45] The lawsuit alleged that this had created "immense downward pressure" on share prices over time. Kerry Fields, associate professor of law and business ethics at the University of Southern California, said, "Byrne may be able to help set new law if he handles this right." Fields said, Byrne's "best approach now is probably to persuade the SEC, which continues to wander around the issue, or the government to serve subpoenas and let them decide whether or not his company was wronged."[46]
John Coffee, director of the Center on Corporate Governance at Columbia University Law School, described it as overly ambitious and "extremely unpromising."[45] Two members of the Overstock.com board of directors, John Fisher and Ray Groves, resigned in disagreement over the lawsuit.[47][48]
In December 2010, all but two of the prime broker defendants settled out of court with Overstock for $4.4 million.[49] That same month, the company filed a motion seeking to amend its lawsuit against the remaining defendants—Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch—to include claims of RICO violations. The enhanced claims were based on evidence gained through discovery in the case.[50]
PS that's an interesting second post from someone who's first post was (only hours ago) within 20 minutes of getting his/her ID.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
