News Focus
News Focus
icon url

hope4patients

09/06/23 6:12 PM

#628747 RE: pqr #628744

I agree with you re: the judge’s inclination to deny the MTD swiftly after reading the briefs submitted to-date.
icon url

QL300

09/06/23 6:17 PM

#628749 RE: pqr #628744

I honestly don’t know why anyone sells short. The risk/reward seems out of balance to me. Maybe it’s a rigged game where they have a way out? Or they make so much doing this as a practice that an occasional loser is expected? With all the information out there, this is definitely not a stock to short.
icon url

Idunno

09/06/23 6:27 PM

#628754 RE: pqr #628744

PQR, again, thanks. Do you expect a proposal for settlement, down the pike? (PFS!). I don’t see any other way, for them, but, what do I know? I’d guess it’d better be substantial, but again…(??). And even then, if there are combo deals in place, who needs the settlement…. Thoughts? Thanks.
icon url

JimSmith111

09/06/23 6:32 PM

#628756 RE: pqr #628744

pqr,

Your statement made me remember that Defendants' briefing was supposed to be so persuasive that the briefing would support a Rule 11 Motion!

I understand the reasoning behind the Court's decision, to, for the sake of efficiency, only allow Rule 11, if appropriate, after MTD is ruled on (iirc). But after having seen the unpersuasive Motion and the Reply which is lacking in candor, it seems like it would have been such an unpersuasive Rule 11 Motion as to warrant more than just an eyebrow from the Court.

Better off not having to contest a Rule 11 as a matter of course generally, but I would have enjoyed a written opinion about how baseless the Motion was, should they have been permitted to file one.