Top Tweets for #SUBMITTOFDA

over 1 year ago

Reworded milgrom 3x to stein and now a 4th to woods YET You HAVE A CASE ON 5/10 ACCEPTED HOW NOT TO WIN A CASE #sampowers #nepotism #nwbo $nwbo #SUBMITTOFDA #STOPDISTRACTIONS

alphavestcapital.com

@alphavestcap

over 1 year ago

$nwbo @alphavestcap Woods may override Stein confirming the SAC's allegation that loss causation by both temporal proximity and long term effect.Thus damages go up alot https://t.co/zqejKrEoHF @attnyscott IMHO, the best argument was "the R&R goes on to reach a factual conclusion – based on articles not cited in the SAC – that". The magistrate went outside the complaint looking for information to contradict the Plaintiffs. @flaskworksYou're absolutely right. That argument is a slam dunk because it highlights a major legal error in Judge Stein’s reasoning—he improperly relied on extrinsic evidence rather than limiting his analysis to the four corners of $NWBO's complaint, as required at the motion to dismiss stage. Why This Argument Will Likely Sway Judge Woods: 1. The Motion-to-Dismiss Standard Forbids Using Outside Evidence Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and cannot search for outside evidence to contradict the complaint (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). Courts cannot rely on articles, economic reports, or academic papers not cited in the complaint to justify dismissal. The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that considering such outside sources converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, which requires full discovery (Goel v. Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2016)). 2. Stein’s Use of Outside Articles Violated This Rule The R&R introduced economic papers not cited in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to conclude that spoofing effects are short-lived. This is clear legal error because it contradicts Second Circuit precedent on how loss causation is evaluated at this stage. 3. Woods Has Previously Rejected This Kind of Judicial Overreach In DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Fin., Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 3d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), Woods ruled that courts must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and not weigh competing economic theories at the motion-to-dismiss stage. If Woods applies his own precedent, he will likely reject Stein’s reliance on outside sources and reinstate NWBO’s claim. 4. This Gives Woods a Strong Justification to Overrule Stein Without Controversy Overruling a magistrate can be politically tricky, but this gives Woods an easy legal basis: Stein simply made a procedural error. Woods doesn’t have to take a position on whether NWBO’s long-term impact theory is ultimately correct—he just has to say: “Judge Stein should not have gone outside the complaint.” That’s a neutral, procedural reason to reject Stein’s R&R while keeping the case alive. Final Prediction: Woods will overrule Stein because Stein violated the motion-to-dismiss standard by introducing outside materials not cited in the SAC. NWBO’s long-term price impact theory will proceed to discovery. Stein’s overreach actually makes it easier for Woods to rule in NWBO’s favor without wading into the merits. This was Posner’s strongest argument, and I fully expect it to carry the day. Stein’s mistake practically guarantees that Woods will reject that part of the R&R.Quote📷Scott@AttyScott·3hReplying to @hoffmann6383IMHO, the best argument was "the R&R goes on to reach a factual conclusion – based on articles not cited in the SAC – that". The magistrate went outside the complaint looking for information to contradict the Plaintiffs. https://t.co/SbLQApmtAX The Case: Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185, (S.D.N.Y.) The Docket: https://t.co/sc2pUpucLx… In the above referenced case, $NWBO is suing seven of the largest market makers in the world, including Virtu and Citadel, of market manipulation over a five year period. On May 1, 2024 the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss ("MTD") $NWBO's Second Amended Complaint. On January 31, 2025 Magistrate Stein filed a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") where he recommended the MTD be denied in part and granted in part. You can read more about the R&R here: R&R Summary: https://t.co/HcLq1lX54b… General R&R analysis: https://t.co/3ZF3ixkqEH… Yesterday, February 14, 2025, both $NWBO and Defendants filed their objections to the R&R. In another 14 days we will see each party file a response to the objections. Barring any further delays, Judge Woods will then make a ruling on whether to adopt the R&R or issue a different ruling. In this post I'll review the objections to the R&R filed on 2-14-25 and give some thoughts. 1⃣ Defendant Market Makers' Objections to the R&R "The R&R failed, against this background, to recognize that such a theory defies law, economics, and the SAC’s own factual allegations: • It violates foundational principles of market efficiency and price adjustment, which would rapidly incorporate the disappearance of artificial trading signals from the order book. • It completely ignores Defendants’ immediate placement of buy-side orders, which would quickly drive the price of NWBO back up. • It simultaneously alleges a rapid market response for purposes of scienter and a significantly delayed response for loss causation—an implausible claim that defies the law and is irreconcilable on its face." These are largely the same arguments we've seen throughout prior briefings. Thus, you have the above short summary of Defendants' objections. 📷 NWBO's Objections to the R&R 📷📷Legal standard “For any dispositive matter, “any part of the magistrate judge’s recommendation that➡️l reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”” “In the Second Circuit, all a plaintiff must do is “simply give Defendants some indication of the actual loss suffered and of a plausible causal link between that loss and the … alleged manipulative acts.” (R&R at 11.) This “not heavy burden,” particularly in a market manipulation case such as this one where the pleading standards are even more relaxed...” 📷Not necessary at pleading stage to detail each sale "Nothing in the securities laws or in any of the caselaw requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that it suffered damages on each and every one of its purchases or sales of the security at issue." 📷Quantitative Analysis Supports Long-Term Price Impact "The R&R found that, while the SAC’s quantitative analysis showing that, on average, NWBO’s stock price declined during the first 5, 10, and 20 trading days after a Spoofing Episode and then stabilized at that still artificially depressed level over the next 40 days (¶¶ 313-15) demonstrated correlation, it was insufficient to plead causation because Plaintiff’s analysis purportedly did not “control for negative performance or news about NWBO that may have caused its stock price to fall irrespective of any spoofing.” (R&R at 45.) This finding is contrary to both the law and the well-pled facts in the SAC, which the Court is ➡️/span>Second, the R&R does not identify any example of such negative news that it posits could have caused the declines in NWBO stock that followed Defendants’ Spoofing Episodes, and no such facts exist in the SAC from which even such an inference could be made." "Third, the methodology utilized in the quantitative analysis – namely, the use of average prices following Spoofing Episodes throughout the entire Relevant Period – does exactly what the R&R claims must be done (¶¶311-315): it mitigates the effects of other factors, such as NWBO specific corporate news or financial results, and demonstrates that there was still a persistent and long-lasting downward trend caused by Defendants’ spoofing." "Fourth, the SAC then even goes further and conducts a “sentiment analysis” to measure investor enthusiasm prior to and following Spoofing Episodes to demonstrate that, in instances where Defendants were spoofing during periods of rising NWBO stock prices, the spoofing “cut off” investor enthusiasm and prevented the stock price from rising even further…" "Finally, the SAC demonstrates that there was a statistically significant association between NWBO’s share price and standard industry indices (¶¶311-315, n.65), providing even further quantitative support for its allegations that decreases in NWBO stock price following Spoofing Episodes were the result of Defendants’ spoofing, not broader market-wide conditions." 📷Defendants Took No Action To “Drive The Market” Up "The SAC demonstrates through its detailed econometric analysis (¶¶ 313-315) that the negative price impact of Defendants’ spoofing did not fully reverse over time. As the SAC pleads, this is because Baiting Orders drive the price down more than their cancellation drives the price up, since the market cannot immediately ascertain with certainty that a particular spoofing order was fake and, therefore, a portion of the negative price impact from spoofing episodes does not fully vanish for some time (if ever). (¶ 317.)6" “The long-term price movement of NWBO shares indicates that Defendants’ Baiting Orders had a systematic downward impact, notwithstanding any partial price reversions along the way.” 📷The Economic Literature Supports Long-Term Price Impact "The Second Circuit in Gamma Traders acknowledges that spoofing can have a long-term impact on a stock’s price. Gamma Traders, 41 F.4th at 80 (plaintiff may satisfy pleading standard by alleging facts “about how long the effects of spoofing last.”) Nevertheless, the R&R goes on to reach a factual conclusion – based on articles not cited in the SAC – that the economic literature establishes that “the security’s price returns quickly to the pre-spoofing level once the temporary artificiality injected by the spoofed orders dissipates” (R&R at 40.) In reaching this improper factual conclusion, the R&R ignores not only the Second Circuit in Gamma Traders, but also discounts the analysis by Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Milgrom and a number of other peer-reviewed economics articles that are cited in the SAC9, based on its (incorrect) assessment that those analyses dealt with market manipulation generally rather than spoofing specifically, and, according to the R&R, these principles did not translate because “the profitability of Defendants’ spoofing activity depended on maximizing the impact of their buy-side trading activity, ➡️he scheme exceeded the upward pressure.” (R&R at 44-45.)" “Putting aside that it is inappropriate to rely on articles not referenced or cited to in the SAC, none of the three articles the R&R relies on (R&R at 40), provide econometric support for the Court’s conclusion.” 📷Courts Regularly Adopt Multi-Day Periods For Price Impact "The allegations in the SAC adequately plead loss causation. Should the Court determine that the SAC must allege damages for each of Plaintiff’s sales and that the SAC only alleges that Defendants’ spoofing impacted the market for some shorter period of time, however, at a minimum, NWBO’s sales that were based on Pricing Dates that occurred within 2 trading days after a Spoofing Episode (see Exhibit B)15, attached hereto) would be consistent with both the reasoning of the R&R’s analysis of the temporal proximity theory16 and the substantial body of caselaw finding that the price impact of corrective disclosures (which by contrast to the allegations here are public and incorporated into efficient stock prices relatively quickly), often lasts for at least 2 or 3 days." 📷📷THOUGHTS📷$NWBO has some strong arguments. Recall, "In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept[] all factual allegations in the complaint as true” and “draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”" Yet, here we see Magistrate Judge Woods go beyond the four corners of $NWBO's pleading to reject $NWBO's allegations which is inappropriate at the MTD stage. Here are three examples: “Specifically, the R&R based its conclusion that NWBO had inadequately pled the long-term price impact of Defendants’ spoofing on NWBO’s stock price on the theoretical possibility that some unidentified (and un-pled) negative news about NWBO might have been responsible for some of the price decline in NWBO stock following Spoofing Episodes. Yet the R&R does not say what this negative news was or might have been, or how it concluded that such news was released to the market at the same time as Defendants’ Spoofing Episodes such that the considerable long-term average declines following Spoofing Episodes alleged in the SAC were caused by the unspecified corporate news. Nor can it, as it is directly at odds with the allegations in the SAC, which explain that during the Relevant Period, NWBO disclosed only overwhelmingly positive news regarding its key, life extending Glioblastoma treatment.” “The R&R similarly improperly speculates, again contrary to the allegations in the SAC (see, e.g., ¶ 61), that some of Defendants’ manipulative conduct might have had the effect of increasing the price of NWBO to some unspecified degree. That is an issue for summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss. According to the R&R, this un-pled possibility somehow completely negates the SAC’s quantitative analysis showing that NWBO stock prices only partially reversed following Spoofing Episodes, and remained artificially depressed for up to 60 days thereafter (¶¶ 313-314).” “Indeed, what the R&R requires of a plaintiff at the pleading stage – the quantitative isolation of the impact of spoofing relative to every other market occurrence that could impact a security’s price – is precisely what courts uniformly – including this one – hold is unnecessary at the pleading stage.” Of note is $NWBO's Exhibit A which cites to case law supporting $NWBO's loss causation arguments. Eight of those cases were written by Judge Woods, i.e. the Judge that will be deciding $NWBO's case. While $NWBO wants to get in all of the spoofing incidents under the long term impact theory, they have a fall back argument that damages should include sales that occurred within 2-3 days of spoofing episodes. This would mean ~81 million shares sold at depressed prices (40m one hour + 18m same day + 11.5m next day + 11.5m two days later). "In addition to the over 40 million shares of NWBO stock that were sold in transactions that had a Pricing Date on the same day as a Spoofing Episode, NWBO engaged in 14 sales of a total of 11,416,171 shares where there was a Pricing Date that was one trading day after a Spoofing Episode, and NWBO engaged in another 16 sales of a total of 11,501,842 shares where there was a Pricing Date that was two trading days after a Spoofing Episode." 📷TLDR; 📷 A great chance $NWBO moves forward with ~58m shares sold at depressed prices (same day sales). A smaller chance $NWBO $NWBO moves forward with ~274m shares sold at depressed prices (long term impact). That is before discovery, which has the chance of finding additional shares sold at yet to be identified spoofing incidents: https://t.co/sK2UhCwfs4… Keep in mind, these actual damages are only part of the damages $NWBO can claim in this lawsuit: https://t.co/hrOMoA889Z… Nothing is ever guaranteed in litigation, but it's looking like $NWBO is moving forward to discovery 📷 📷 https://t.co/rMYHo2aVm8 Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185 - https://t.co/gYqckKh805 Docket for Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

681

353

Top Tweets for #SUBMITTOFDA

Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users