I also doubt that the Lerner case's counsel would not have amended their complaint to include these "facts", if they were actual facts that would sustain the case against a motion to dismiss. Very hard to believe that that would not have happened if there were any scintilla of evidence to show that these allegations are true.
Generally, the case already included the allegation, and some allege that relevant facts earlier did not capture a later determination by the IDMC. It's amazing how these shorts keep adjusting their arguments to claim that ... OK, you dismissed my case, but I'm talking about facts that happened AFTER that case was filed.... complete and utter nonsense. FAKE NEWS.
And, if there are those who claim this happened after the case was filed, then why were they not talking about that issue, with regard to the case and the subsequent events BEFORE the case was dismissed? The complaint was available, I know that people were discussing, in fact, the allegations there, because that's where all the discussion tended to be. It's also interesting that people have such presence of awareness to know what was plead and what was not, supposedly. Very interesting. Sounds like coordination to me.