Replies to post #337427 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

And that is not true and that is not how this works. You fundamentally misunderstand the complexity and possibilities of what they will receive. You are equating data from the statistical firm with rejection by the FDA, and they are not the same thing.

You also took one sentence out of the fuller context. I choose to give fuller answers. It’s late, they may be stream of consciousness but they also thoroughly address a range of details. You’re also oversimplifying. The 4 day rule does not require that immediate disclosure. It is optional. They have said they will disclose, so I believe they will. But the notion that failure to disclose necessarily means that they hit their endpoints because “the law”... is a flawed conclusion based upon a flawed and often illogically convoluted set of assumptions and contingencies by people who might not want to induce reliance by others based upon nonsense and false assumptions.

“No not asserting any such thing as "if they fail to disclose that means trial did not fail." I am simply stating if management gets a report from the statisticians the company hired to run the data against the end points and the Primary Endpoint fails then the Company had a duty to disclose that to shareholders. Very basic. There are no assurances that the trial did not fail. The company may not have the report from the statisticians. The Company could also breach the duty to disclose. Most likely is the report is not ready yet or has not been communicated to management. “

[biosectinvestor]

You’re just making up this duty. This is not covered in the defined events for the 8K except as optional. You’re not saying anything except your desire and opinion. The law requires specific items for the 4 day disclosure, or under Reg FD, a specific context. Your idea of “materiality, even if based on ideas in fraud cases, doesn’t trigger that duty.

As for assurances being given that absent such disclosure, there has not been a failure. Let me assure you that the reason we are having this conversation is exactly because people are taking your false argument to make that very point. That is the reason this has been discussed for days and days and days.

You’re wrong because your just reciting a duty as though it comes from the ether. The 4 day report in requirements are narrow and specific. They are not general material disclosure rules that cover anything that any investor could think might be material. That would be not only impossible with which to comply, but would encompass just about anything in hindsight.

There are specific disclosure requirements that also cover optional items, ad then there are anti-fraud and anti-insider trading rules related to disclosure. Those additional items are not under the 4 day rules and silence does not prove anything. And possible general materiality, does not trigger a duty to disclose. You do not understand these laws.

The only different thing you’re doing is trying to refine back the argument, to suggest no one can induce reliance but they must report... so you’re hiding an argument about what induced reliance in a false summary of the law, claiming that no one is relying. That has been the whole point of the argument. Had people not been falsely reassuring people, I doubt I would have spent much time trying to convince anyone. But the cats out of the bag. Falsely asserting the one legal notion inevitably leads back to the other false logic.

The report from the statistical firm is not covered by the 8K rules, except as an optional disclosure in the broadly stated catch all category of things companies can disclose in the 8K.