Replies to post #390499 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[anders2211]

pqr

100% agree perfect describtion

If anyone is interested in the subject Disclosing Negative Test Results

https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=jchlp
The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy
Disclosing Negative Test Results

page 23 PDF

[biosectinvestor]

The problem is that various requirements make many of these things irrelevant to what we’re discussing or unlikely to be useful to a plaintiff except in keeping a matter alive in court, but often the standards and requirements to prove make most cases not winnable for plaintiffs.

I posted a link from one of the very good law firms on these subjects the other day. It went through the various kinds of cases, the standards, and with enough detail to see that most of what is discussed here is not a real and winnable case, ultimately, and therefore only useful for nuisance suits, at best.

Some rules only apply, that some people discuss, because of certain specific exchange rules that at this time do not apply to NWBO. And as I’ve mentioned before, if there was a mandatory disclosure rule, which is not always as generic as a basic reader if these articles might think.

There is a lot of general nonsense that is said and spoken about that is “best practice”, to avoid litigation. But it doesn’t automatically mean a company would actually lose such a case or that they actually had a duty to disclose or update as suggested here. They are broad rules, and even where one might have spoken generically to a “securities lawyer”, one might not know enough detail or told them enough detail for them to know why, for instance, a company might choose silence versus additional and often unnecessary disclosure.

The reality is, these rules are more Swiss cheese, than what some who are from alternative legals systems might think and might be predisposed to hearing and understanding given their legal training in a different kind of system.

[biosectinvestor]

Also, some law school articles, if you read them closely, the focus is on what the student thinks the law SHOULD be, not what it actually is currently. Reading such articles, a lay person could easily become confused and think they mean the law is that and judges are just yet to rule, but often a closer reading is really, this is how the agencies should update their standards, certain rules need clarification and in the best of worlds, where these things are done, we can reach what the student authors think is the “optimal” policy solution. So reading such articles will often not give a lay person a good sense of what the limits of the current law are in fact. In fact, that is often not the purpose of the article or the author advocate. That’s why, usually they get published in law journals, not to summarize the law, but to advocate for policy change. Law firm updates do the summaries, but the purpose of those summaries is to describe the current law, recent developments and also to scare potential clients into hiring them. But even so, these law firm summaries are often a better indicator of where the law currently is and what areas of controversy are the current focus of the courts.