Thanks, Dude.
It now seems that everything hangs on one man's opinion which has currently no legal precedents on which to make his decision. It might just depend on how he is feeling that morning! He must decide on how long can elapse before an episode of spoofing ceases to have an effect on share price. On this will the claim of causation hang.
He is going to have to decide on the question "How long is an "obvious" length of elapsed time for which spoofing can be held responsible for a depressed share price?" and so satisfy or reject the claim of causation. It is either the status quo of being obviously linked or it is longer and if so how much longer? The acceptable link currently seems to be a very narrow window between the spoofing and the claimed causation of anything from a few milliseconds / seconds / minutes after which the connection starts to become increasingly more nebulous until there is no certain connection - and, therefore, no causation.
Hopefully for NWBO, Judge Stein will accept that a Nobel Prize winner's conclusions that the effects of spoofing are longer lasting than the law currently appears to accept so that Ms Posner's response will be sufficient for him to reject the Motion to Dismiss. I am not trained in law but I would understand, rightly of wrongly, that his decision will be treated as "case law" (or is it "lore") on which future similar cases can be adjudged. If he decides that Ms Posner's reasoning is either insufficient or incorrect I'm sure that she will not agree with him. If so, what could be her next move? Is she allowed to appeal his decision to a higher court and, if so, would this higher court be bound to adjudge her appeal?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
