InvestorsHub Logo

Idunno

12/09/22 4:31 PM

#546633 RE: flipper44 #546627

Likely, if I can believe im told plaintiffs attorneys, firms, … there won’t be a stone left unturned. Fingers crossed.

VikingInvest

12/09/22 4:32 PM

#546635 RE: flipper44 #546627

Not sure how they have uncovered the data they have as the underlying case for their spoofing claim. Could it be that they already have a whistleblower? Or do they have forensic data experts who have discovered this data from readily available sources?
Bullish
Bullish

evanstony

12/09/22 5:52 PM

#546673 RE: flipper44 #546627

and this could morph into a massive global chapter.



That narrative really fits the saga of NWBO. Winning for patients, stockholders and other non invested retail that have also been victims...from the survival of the multiple years of trying to kill this company and their product .... as Mav1 has said... Rising from the Ashes... and now scorching the thugs and their players ...

The truth is just way better than any fiction about Wall Street!

What a story indeed!
Bullish
Bullish

Survivor2012

12/09/22 8:58 PM

#546757 RE: flipper44 #546627

Ahhh yes, very plausible. "Ding, dong the witch(es) will (soon to be) dead" -- coming to a to a movie theater near you: "Look what you've done!! I'm melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world. You destroyed my beautiful wickedness."
Bullish
Bullish

biosectinvestor

12/09/22 9:33 PM

#546775 RE: flipper44 #546627

I strongly agree with your post on this subject. I think this could be a really big case and the MM's should want to settle it asap, at whatever cost, but quietly.

NWBO will have to decide if they want to keep it going. If the Feds jump in, that will make it very easy to just keep going. Of course the Feds could have a quiet investigation going and may not be ready to reveal it.

We'll have to see, but it seems like it could be a huge case and extremely problematic for the market makers.
Bullish
Bullish

pqr

12/10/22 3:09 AM

#546867 RE: flipper44 #546627

flip - statistical “unequivocal” evidence is an oxymoron- there is no such thing.

I’m not even sure that statistical evidence, no matter how compelling, is alone sufficient to survive a “summary judgment” motion. I’m sure that point can be determined by legal research and perhaps other posters know the answer, but I’ll look when I have the time. NWBO’s counsel undoubtedly know and have considered the answer.