Replies to post #148296 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[kabunushi]

Flipper, I'm not responding in order to further argue with you, but rather to say that I found the article posted by Boredlawyer to be super informative and especially wrt your point (not wrt to NDA at all, but) wrt the legal duty to correct mistaken statements vs the duty to update when something that was true when disclosed that becomes no longer true. Your generic example could fall into either bucket, depending on the specific. I urge you to check out the article - I think you would also find it well worth reading when you have 10 minutes. Several of the most relevant summary points:

For decades, the duty to correct and the duty to update
have frequently been ill-defined and confused with each other by plaintiffs, courts, and the government.79
These two duties are distinguishable, with the duty to correct being a much more accepted duty in the
securities disclosure arena. However, despite numerous courts espousing a “duty to correct,” very few
actually find that such a duty exists. Indeed, a vast majority of cases that cite such a duty find that it does
not apply in that case.
Distinguishing the Duty to Correct from the Duty to Update

The “duty to update,” as that term is used herein, describes a duty to provide additional information
to update or supplement a previous disclosure that was accurate when made, but became misleading
due to subsequent events. As opposed to the duty to correct which, as discussed above, has been
widely recognized, the duty to update has been the subject of great debate. Several circuit courts have
recognized that a duty to update may exist in certain circumstances,152 but far fewer have actually imposed
liability based upon such a duty.153 The Sixth and Ninth Circuits have expressly declined to reach the
issue,154 and the Seventh Circuit has explicitly rejected the duty to update.15