Replies to post #202842 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Smokey21]

Maybe they are just letting him dig his grave a little deeper before running the table:-)

[XenaLives]

Even a cease and desist order can be contested. In order to defend it the company may have had to disclose confidential info.

LP is an attorney. I think she probably checked out all the options...

[learningcurve2020]

Agreed.

Powers appears to know her real estate. Very interesting development. Hmm

Still wonder where Woodford is in all this?

[IkeEsq]

RE: Legality of AF Tweet

Original AF Tweet:

The FDA and the SEC know the trial has been unblinded and analyzed at least once, likely 2-3 times. This is why the study was halted, why they’ve buried the results and instead throwing up "long tail" smokescreen. It was over a long time ago.

ou71764:

If he doesn't have proof, then his tweet is illegal. NWBO is run by an attorney. The fact that LP does nothing about this feeds the speculation that it's true.

My question:

What exactly is illegal about it?

ou71764:

You may not agree with the securities laws, but they exist nonetheless.

Personal attack assuming without evidence that I don’t believe in the law simple because I asked you to specify why you claimed something is illegal.

ou71764:

It is illegal to post false information - good or bad - with the intent of influencing stock prices.

Still no citation to any actual law that you claim was broken and I do not think that your definition of what is illegal is true. Additionally, no explanation for specifically how his tweet is illegal based on what you claim is illegal conduct. However, at least you have narrowed it down to securities laws so I will help you out.

Here is the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, feel free to point out which one applies to AF’s tweet.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/part-240

The closest I know of is:

§ 240.10b-5 Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices.

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b-5

However, this only applies to the purchase and sale of securities. This would require proof that AF was attempting to purchase or sell NWBO stock. In addition, it would require proof that he was attempting to use materially (and known to him to be) false statements to defraud. If he believes the statements to be true, perhaps based on 'reasonable' conjectures, any misinformation is not material, or he is not intending to buy/sell NWBO stock, then it is not illegal.

For the most part, the SEC regulates brokers, dealers, and companies, not individuals.

ou71764:

AF might contend that he isn't trying to affect the stock price with false information. If that is the case, all he needs to do is provide his source for his claim that the trial was unblinded and that NWBO knows that the trial failed. NWBO has stated that the trial hasn't been unblinded. It would appear that either AF or LP is lying, and if so, someone is guilty of violating securities laws.

No, he is innocent until proven guilty. He is not required to present any evidence or defend himself in any way. The SEC is required to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible evidence.

As to either AF or LP being in violation of securities laws, life is not black and white, right and wrong. It is possible that both statements are correct or believed to be correct. For instance, NWBO can state on Saturday that they have not unblinded and unblind on Sunday. On Monday, AF can claim they have unblinded. Both are correct. Or, one or both parties could be mistaken. Or it may not be material (I am not saying it is or is not). Or it may not be in relation to the purchase or sale of securities.

ou71764:

I don't have an opinion on whether or not people should listen to AF. My position is that NWBO's silence makes him seem credible. This would not have to be a long drawn out court battle. NWBO could just draft a simple cease and desist order and then issue a PR that it had been done. Not a big deal to take that step - should have been done a long time ago.

Cease and Desist letters are normally issued by the party bringing suit. In this case, that is the SEC if it is a violation of Securities Laws. Private companies do not usually have a remedy under the SEC laws. Telling a journalist not to publish in the future is called a Prior Restraint and is a SERIOUS violation of the First Amendment. Despite Flipper’s belief that the ramblings of a half-wit like AF are going to lead to the abolition of the First Amendment, I tend to disagree.

NWBO is not going to waste their time and resources going after shorts and morons like AF. It would only suck up resources, open them up to discovery they do not want to provide, and distract them from their job, which is to successfully conclude this Phase III trial and get their products approved and to market. Litigation is a no-win situation. For the last several years they have been trying to resolve all of the cases against them, opening a new one would be a disaster.