Replies to post #678716 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[flipper44]

I’m not certain you know exactly how plaintiffs demonstrate this. Like everyone else, you’ll need to wait for the next episode.

[CherryTree1]

I went back and did some reading and believe it is more complicated than that.
They might be able to respond to the formula for the table values but that in and of itself might not be sufficient to show one of the two ways described below.
My guess is that they will provide far more than that in their amendment to make it virtually indisputable IMHO

Denial of the Motion to Dismiss in Northwest Biotherapeutics Lawsuit Against Seven Wall Street Market Makers for Spoofing Would be a Major Catalyst for the Company
POSTED by LARRY SMITH on MAR 12, 2024 •

Key Points:

I believe that the lawsuit will be allowed to go to discovery…

— Peter Davis (@peter_brit) March 13, 2024

Loss causation
The issue of loss causation is what has torpedoed almost all prior lawsuits. The R&R explained that NWBO had to show that the spoofing schemes drove down the price for NWBO when they were selling shares; there are two ways of showing this. The first is temporal proximity that requires NWBO to demonstrate that it sold shares so close in time to defendants' spoofing as to permit the court to infer as a matter of common sense that the market prices were artificially low when plaintiff issued shares. A second way is for NWBO to plead a protracted effect which requires showing that the effects of the spoofing lasted for a protracted period so as to justify an inference that the market price was still artificially low at a longer time than is the case with temporal proximity, perhaps days or months or years. If either of these conditions are met, loss causation is established.

The R&R found that NWBO had successfully pled manipulation and scienter so that there are sufficient reasons to conclude that Citadel and the other market makers had purposely and with motive manipulated NWBO's stock price through spoofing. The R&R also ruled in NWBO's favor on reliance. On loss causation, the R&R concluded that the First Amended Complaint was not sufficiently pled. Specifically, it stated that NWBO would need to clarify and better explain the formula used to show the effect on the stock price from the time of spoofing to the closing price. On this basis the R&R recommended that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted, but with the condition that Plaintiff had the right to replead this one issue in a Second Amended Complaint. The R& R provided a road map by which NWBO could cure the deficiencies articulated with respect to loss causation that would enable it to survive the MTD based on the Second Amended Complaint.

➡️LOSS CAUSATION⬅️$NWBO

1. What is the Court looking for?

2. Will NWBO be able to provide the requested information?

The Case: https://t.co/SNKTxns1sw

1⃣The court is looking for a "formulaic connection between the referenced Pricing Dates and the sales price..." [1]…

— hoffmann6383 (@hoffmann6383) February 15, 2024

NWBO: LOSS CAUSATION

1. What is the Court looking for?

2. Will NWBO be able to provide the requested information?

The Case: https://courtlistener.com/docket/66579590/northwest-biotherapeutics-inc-v-canaccord-genuity-llc/

1?The court is looking for a "formulaic connection between the referenced Pricing Dates and the sales price..." [1]

2?Does $NWBO have information to show this formulaic connection?

In a January 12, 2024 NWBO filing entitled Plaintiff's Limited Objection to Magistrate Judge Stein's Report and Recommendation Regarding the Element of Loss Causation, $NWBO stated:

"While the Complaint does not reproduce the complete mathematical formula for each sale (which varies from sale to sale, so would require dozens of additional pages of allegations), it does specifically allege that this formula was monotonic in the closing price for each date. That is, the sale price generated by each of these formulas always decreased if the closing price of NWBO stock decreased on the indicated pricing date. (¶ 289.)" [2] (emphasis added)

$NWBO's attorney infers that they are in possession of this information. I believe NWBO has this information available and we will see it filed within thirty days in $NWBO's Second Amended Complaint.