Replies to post #20496 on Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation fka RXPC

[guardiangel]

Let me educate you to how a back door listing a/k/a backdoor listing works...You guys think that it is from MJ..Whoever started the rumor was planned in my opinion...It was a gr8 opportunity for the creeping takeover group along with our director to accumulate shares..just blame it on the MJ rumor.This helps the takeover group get an abundance of shares. You guys helped by posting on the two forums that the increase of volume was from MJ..Why did you guys pump that rumor as an excuse? Just curious..But we already know why..No answer needed...But I will give you the opportunity to answer this question. How come there was large volume in the periods I am presenting and who was buying???

Date Volume

May 25, 2012 207,965,300
May 29,2012 251,389,600
May 31, 2012 263,545,400
June 1, 2012 378,592,700

June 15,2012 208,250,400
June 28,2012 182,674,700
July 2,2012 166,400,100
July 10,2012 524,879,000

Sept.20,2012 166,401,400
Sept.21,2012 405,740,400
Sept.24,2012 344,683,900
Sept.25,2012 142,550,100

Feb.1, 2013 389,462,900
Feb.4, 2013 126,854,600
Feb.11,2013 170,421,200
Feb.13,2013 225,150,300
Feb.20,2013 178,625,600

April 13,2013 173,573,600
April 26,2013 329,241,100

July 5,2013 509,371,900
July 8,2013 150,432,200

Feb. 24,2014 749,805,200


Mar.20, 2014 145,537,000
Mar. 21,2014 172,966,000
Mar.24, 2014 326,456,300
Mar.27, 2014 113,837,000

Total 7,017,296,300 That is around 3.5 billion of accumulation..This is just the large volume days..I will post the total of the rest of the days in my next post..I will guess a total of 10.2 billion..Then we can tell how many penny flippers or dumps.. Capiche? later

[lakeshore555]

vester_guy, you say "The 2.5 million is standard when it is difficult to prove damages." I don't think this is true.

Your assertion is based on what? Radient and Dominos Pizza class actions had $2.5M settlements, therefore it is an industry standard? Thanks in advance for explaining.

[lakeshore555]

"YOU HAVE TO PROVE DAMAGES..." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Isn't that the fundamental basis of every class action?

Yes, I have studied a little law. And I recommend this as reading for everyone:

http://securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1046/RPC00_01/2013517_r01o_11CV00406.pdf

Excerpt of particular interest:

"MacLellan told Ariura to put together a few paragraphs of what would eventually the January 18 Press Release. PF 52. An early draft touts the study as Radient’s “latest Onko- Sure Trial,” describes plans for Radient to merge its Onko-Sure data with CEA data from MVSS, and makes one reference to the Mayo Clinic, noting that two doctors from the clinic would decide how to best communicate any resulting data. Kim Decl. Ex. 20 at PK 296. Staff at Radient circulated drafts by e-mail, and noted “(no mention of Mayo)” in the e-mail subject line. See, e.g. , id. at PK 295.

"A later draft, from January 15, 2011, makes no reference at all to Mayo and also refers to the study as the “Onko-Sure Trial.” Id. at PK 297.

"A draft from January 12 did make clear references to Mayo. It had the following relevant text (in bold) after MacLellan’s comment (that made it into the January 18 Press Release) about having reached “this important milestone”:

"Collaboration with Mayo is critically important to the commercialization strategy and plan for Onko-Sure. To have internationally recognized leaders in oncology evaluate Onko-Sure is a testament to the importance of our test. It is
also a boost for RPC to be involved and collaborate with such a prestigious cancer center like Mayo. We look forward to the long-term impact this could have on patient care as well as our business model.

"Before the January 18 Press Release went out, both of Radient’s scientific employees involved in the study, Drs. Small-Howard and Afsaneh Motamed-Khorasani, raised worries about it. Motamed-Khorasani e-mailed a public relations employee, as well as MacLellan and Ariura, and noted that Radient had still not paid for the study, and that “I think we need to pay Mayo first before we can send out the press release with their name on it.” Kim Decl. Ex. 10 at PK 118. Small-Howard, who was copied on the e-mail, replied to all agreeing that “Mayo is not in a favorable mood,” and that “We should consider the future implications of a press release at this time,” given the earlier e-mail in which MVSS expressed frustration with Radient over nonpayment. Id. Despite the fact that the Collaboration Agreement required MVSS or Mayo Clinic’s approval before using their names in a press release, PF 65, MacLellan went ahead and told his employees to issue the press release. PF 68."