Replies to post #131133 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[bradfordbros]

Thanks for that it's certainly ugly but what one would expect from these types of lawyers.

[scottsmith]

Lol at writing Sullivan can't collect a legal fee. That is priceless and high, high comedy.

Hard to believe a court would allow a law firm to rely on an anonymous article by a short seller as the basis for a class action suit, and that it would permissible w/ no dd on the firm's part and a couple hours after publication. But hey, don't worry...rosen can find some doctor to pay after the fact to confirm.

[loanranger]

This stuff drives me nuts....and it's not just a Rosen thing, it's a lawyer thing. And let me be the first to say that it's not significant:

"However, Plaintiff respond to Defendants’ baseless assertion that Plaintiffs Nicole O’Connell and Gary Zagami committed perjury in their PSLRA certifications. Both Plaintiffs O’Connell and Zagami reviewed and authorized the filing of a complaint and the amended complaint, respectively, prior to their filing."

Sullivan had tossed the perjury thing out, I suspect with no purpose other than to make a stink. But he had a point...both O and Z had filed certifications that said "Plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its filing." But they had signed those certifications on 8/6 and 8/7 respectively while the Complaint and Amended Complaint were filed on 9/11 and 9/24. It's virtually impossible for them to have "reviewed the complaint" at the time they signed their certifications.
There's a question in my mind as to whether this is as serious as it sounds and represents a flaw in the way Rosen handles lead plaintiff candidates or if its something that happens every day and Sullivan simply thought it might be in his interest to add to the things that make Rosen look bad, which it does seem to do.

But none of that is what drove me nuts. It was this sentence from the Rosen response:
"Both Plaintiffs O’Connell and Zagami reviewed and authorized the filing of a complaint and the amended complaint, respectively, prior to their filing."
That's not the issue at all! The issue isn't whether they reviewed the Complaints prior to the filing of the Complaints, it's whether they reviewed the Complaints prior to the signing of their certifications.

Lawyers.....
Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer.

[grizzlyman]

Ty Loanranger...

[F1ash]

I thank you LR. You certainly have a skill set that benefits everyone here.

I am not a lawyer but I just can't see were Rosen addressed this issue.

"On the other hand, if the two plaintiffs somehow did review the complaint prior to
certification, it is equally troubling because it means either: (a) the Rosen Law Firm prepared the complaint in a matter of hours, showing that it failed to make a reasonable inquiry under Rule 11 (which would not be surprising because its assertions are demonstrably false); or (b) the Rosen Law Firm knew about the article and had a copy before it was posted online, thereby showing at a minimum that lawyers at the Rosen Law Firm either knew personally or were in touch with the anonymous author who Defendants believe is complicit in perpetrating securities fraud."

The closest thing I was able to find was near the end where they said, that could be remedied by having an independent scientist look at it now, but that still wouldn't explain how they performed proper Due Diligence in two hours.

If anyone here knows how to find the TOS rules for Seeking Alpha that were in effect at the time the article was written (I believe they were updated recently) I would love to read them as I believe it could be useful to Sullivan.

Thanks again Lone Ranger!

[BooDog]

It seems to me Rosen is talking in circles attempting to debunk Sullivan and cover their own behind about using the short seller report to begin with. It will be interesting to see the courts response IF a response is warranted other than allowing Sullivan's report to "stand". Seems to me there is a lot of "between the lines" attempt from Rosen to keep the initial "request to dismiss" from standing. And it still doesn't get Rosen off the hook for their lack of DD filing their initial complaint. Moving on to proprietorship about having an outside scientist review, I would think would not be allowed other than information that has already been released. Further, even mentioning this is an admission Rosen didn't have a clue to begin with. The Menon issue was dealt with sufficiently early on before CTIX was moving forward not to be detrimental to Cellceutix or potential investors. But that's my opinion.

All for seeing how this plays out. Thanks for your work on this LR. :-)

[WILD_4_IPIX]

YOU are the MAN LONERANGER ! Thanks for your compelling due diligence and your ability to read the mumbo jumbo and ultimately understand and convey the facts and provide clarity on so many issues..... that most of us struggle in understanding ....and if it ain't most, it sure as he** is ME ! Thanks again and hope you and family and all our posters have a safe and joyous Thanksgiving ! Warning : Do NOT eat as much as I AM !

GO LR & GO CTIX !

[slcimmuno]

Thx LR for your sleuthing on this. Much appreciated. I'm thinking Sullivan holds the much stronger hand here.