Replies to post #264813 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Poor Man -]

That’s a good read, Hyper.

There’s nothing outside the ordinary of what should be expected. The company has to take due care to ensure that its statements are accurate with the necessary relevant information, while not including or omitting anything that could be considered misleading. I’m sure NWBO’s outside counsel should be able to vett any press releases.

The one uncertainty is whether Les will ask both FDA and SEC counsel to review and comment on the PR for TLD. That could add plenty of time, especially if there’s any back and forth between the attorneys. I would like to think (wishfully) that Linda and Les know what they’re doing in that regard.

[biosectinvestor]

This company has likely already disclosed anything that is being discussed in the context of this trial, however. You can’t keep coming back at the Apple after investing or holding after the previous disclosures.

[biosectinvestor]

This is also about best practices. If you have actual facts that suggest something funny is going on, that’s fine, but right now all I see is the continuation of what looks like years of speculative harassment using bulletin boards as the true forum, to drive investors out.

In the last litigated case, it turned out the allegations had not even the slightest scintilla of a basis in material fact, even though they came from AF’s columns... and the end result was a dismissal for failure to state a claim, the lowest standard in the court, simply to be sure people are not harassing companies.

I’d say more but I don’t like to educate people I think are likely up to no good.

[sentiment_stocks]

“Top line” results should not overstate the outcome of a clinical trial. A company faces a particular challenge in a situation where it has “top line” results from a clinical trial but the company cannot yet disclose the underlying data. A company risks the allegation that a “top line” summary omitted significant details, e.g., that notwithstanding that the primary endpoint was met, the drug or device provides only modest benefits. A company should consider: (i) whether it has conducted sufficient analyses to reach a “top line” determination; (ii) whether the company is required to disclose those “top line” results to investors; and (iii) what the company should say about them. If the company determines that disclosure is required, it should include appropriate caveats regarding the company’s state of knowledge. Further, to the extent possible, a company should avoid putting itself in a situation where it may be alleged to have overstated a product’s benefits.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/insight-the-sec-fda-nexus-best-practices-for-publicly-traded-life-sciences-companies

Given this statement, I hope one can understand why the company will want to take the appropriate amount of time it needs from unblinding to disclosing top line.