Arguably, we’ve all been considered adversaries by NWBO in a way under that possible scenario, but they can protect themselves by arguing trial integrity. Longs at least had the opportunity to buy, although the objective uncertainty made it harder.
Well that pretty much summarizes my current belief. Going to try and cut down on posting this summer. Good luck to patients. I hope there is a TRUE breakthrough for you soon from this and/or some other therapy. Best wishes.
hmmm... well just for the record, I don't agree with this point. But that is likely how it all played out. Shorts benefited, for sure, and were perhaps baited if real evidence was collected; longs are still largely in the dark; and they did accumulate quite a number of securities for themselves, which would have been less had the share price stayed stable and at higher rates. But I'd argue that it was the shorts primarily who were responsible for the dilution as I think they shorted the stock down by selling shares that they didn't have (using warrants instead as collateral), and then most likely corrected as the share price lowered. And then reshorted all over again using the same warrants as collateral, over and over again. I think that is naked shorting as those warrants aren't shares. And if the warrants are priced at $4 dollars, and they are used to short a stock under a $1, that is grossly unfair and naked as a baby when first born. In my opinion, of course.
Are there piles of counterfeit shares still out there? I don't know. There's probably around 12 million or so of them, backed by warrants. But the warrants are probably lower now... closer to the actual price. So that is more difficult for me to argue. But technically, one is supposed to borrow a share to execute a short position, and that may not have been what happened.