I think he’s hoping they will not do that (attempt to keep the share price low by holding back any other good news) at the time (assumed) approval occurs. I hope as well that they release the hounds/news at any approval.
I was asking you what your intended meaning was... from your own statement, as cited below (but I can see from looking back that I wasn't very clear at all in what I was asking). You wrote:
Personally, I'd rather them communicate their ongoing progress and allow the share price to rise, than for them to stay quiet to keep the share price low because they believe it may help in their settlement negotiations.
So I'm wondering if you think the company is trying to keep the share price low because by having a low share price, it will help in their settlement negotiations, or instead, if by keeping communication to a minimum it will help with settlement negotiations? The difference being...1) just having a low share price, or 2) by being quiet, one or the other will help with any settlement negotiations?
I ask because I'm not too sure how keeping the share price low would have to do with any settlement discussions. Whether the share price is higher or lower, if the case moves on to discovery, there's a decent chance some of these market makers will want out of this case and be willing to pay to negotiate out of it, no matter what the share price is. And if instead, you think being quiet about their ongoing progress will help with any settlement negotiations, I'd like to better understand how that would work. And if your intended meaning was both things would have an effect on any settlement, I was hoping you could explain a bit more how keeping the share price low and keeping quiet might help with settlement negotiations.