Replies to post #796640 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[dennisdave]

Your BS has literally no boundaries.

The company hiding an MHRA rejection based on the excuse that "Form 8-K doesn't specifically mention MHRA rejections," is ignoring the core of SEC compliance. A regulatory rejection is inherently material and must be disclosed immediately to protect investors from trading on inaccurate information. This news would almost certainly cause a significant drop in the stock price. Therefore, the company must disclose it immediately because it materially impacts the value of the securities. Whether it's "good" or "bad" is secondary to its financial and investment consequences.

SEC Rule 10b-5 (The Anti-Fraud Provision)
This is the ultimate "catch-all" rule that renders the claim that Form 8-K is an exhaustive list completely incorrect.

The Rule: Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful for any person: (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or...

The Duty to Correct: If a company previously issued positive statements about DCVAXL's progress, and the MHRA rejects it, withholding the rejection is the omission of a material fact that makes their prior statements misleading. The duty to correct that information is immediate.

and thats just 2 SEC reasons why your claiim is BS
Clown.

[Doc logic]

exwannabe,

Linda had good news she could have disclosed in 2015 regarding the screening hold which, obviously for fiduciary and strategic reasons she chose not to. At that time she said bad actors turned “good news” into “bad news” and that happened because the “good news” was never disclosed to anyone publicly and those privately aware, time has shown us, were obviously not allowed to trade based on this information. This is the logical fit to explain why Mr. Woodford had to be replaced as fiduciary and why insiders with this information never traded shares. The only ones technically able to get around this legally if they came into publicly undisclosed information are the market makers because of their assigned role but even they can’t legally do anything more than provide adequate liquidity which, apart from their greed motivated price setting schemes, now likely is being looked into as much as possible through discovery. Contrary to your claim, lack of public disclosure of “good news” is permitted by healthcare and other regulators, including the SEC, for strategic business reasons as long as there is no financial advantage created and taken by selective disclosure which is the primary determining factor regarding need for material disclosure. The regulations are clear about this and your explanation does not take the fuller picture into account…me thinks on purpose. Best wishes.