InvestorsHub Logo

biosectinvestor

06/10/19 6:20 AM

#232497 RE: biosectinvestor #232496

Remember, this was raised during litigation...and the fact is, generally court’s subject allegations to the assumption that they are generally “true”... the standard of evidence to overcome a motion to dismiss is exceptionally low to ensure that plaintiffs have access to the benefit of the courts so that they can have access to justice...

You all not only failed to overcome the very light burden that the controversy at least be vaguely real, but the counsel did not file again because that would have been abuse of process without actual indications that those were not opinions and not factual allegations...

So, I think you’re the ones who could not overcome even the worst burden in a court of law AVII... and Ex... posts came around the same time...

AVII77

06/10/19 7:03 AM

#232503 RE: biosectinvestor #232496

You are remarkably consistent with your confusion.

I am sure many here know you are wrong; Flipper, Senti, Evaluate, DocLogic..... anyone who has been here since 2014 knows you are wrong (most of those who know how to read also are aware of this).

The denial PR of the 66th event interim (triggered in late 2013) prior to the 2014 resizing does not inform us of the conduct (or as you assert, lack thereof) of the 149th interim in mid-2015.

You didn't show up here until late 2016.

You are are obviously still confused by this sequence of events.