Shareholder alert (03/25/2016):
My Fellow CTIX Shareholders,
I wish to inform you that our attorney, The Ashcroft Law Firm, today filed our Reply Memorandum of Law in support of our Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by The Rosen Law Firm. Our lead counsel, Michael J. Sullivan, and his team once again did a superb job in their response to shred Rosen’s ever-changing complaint with legal precedent, facts and rationale, especially considering that protocol limited Mr. Sullivan to only ten pages to respond to the latest 30-page document filed by Rosen on behalf of the only plaintiff in the case.
We remain confident that this case is completely frivolous and are still of the opinion that Rosen should be dealt sanctions for their flagrant disregard of the law under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act to conduct proper due diligence to ensure misguided lawsuits that can bog down the courts and damage shareholders do not take place. Of course, that is up for the judge to decide, but we are seeking the case to be dismissed with prejudice and for Rosen to face sanctions.
In today’s document, Mr. Sullivan clearly points out to the Court how Rosen has a practice of changing the allegations in the complaint to create a “moving target,” hoping we can’t hit it (or to confuse the court); “cobbles together an equally unsupportable assortment of statements”; and pleads no actionable claims.
In the first paragraph of the document, Mr. Sullivan succinctly summarizes the ludicrousness of the case by stating,
“This case underscores the dichotomy between securities class actions, which serve an important purpose in protecting classes of investors harmed through corporate malfeasance, and misguided lawsuits that have been filed without basis in fact, or for an improper purpose. The hallmarks of the former, of course, are consistency in the core legal theories of liability, factual allegations that are supported by an identifiable or, at a minimum, facially reliable, source, and fraud claims that are not only theoretically possible or conceivable, but plausible. In stark contrast, this lawsuit has none of these hallmarks.”
Rather than go through the document to highlight piece-by-piece Mr. Sullivan’s destruction of Rosen’s complaint, we highly encourage everyone to read the document for him/herself.
For those that have any concerns about Rosen vying for position to modify the complaint yet again (which is actually just standard jargon to try and legitimize the case), a portion of Mr. Sullivan’s closing paragraph addresses this quite simply in stating,
“As a last resort, Plaintiff (in his conclusion) requests leave to amend to file a fourth complaint….Indeed, beginning with the dubious PSLRA certification filed with a hastily-drawn original complaint, this case has been taking on water since its inception. This Court graciously granted leave to file a third complaint (Dkt. 24), and then an extension of time in which to do so (Dkt. 28). Defendants respectfully submit that any further amendment would be futile, and that this Court should dismiss the SAC with prejudice and let this ship go down once and for all.”
The complete document is available for viewing on our website at: http://cellceutix.com/wp-content/uploads/2016...TD-SAC.pdf
Have a happy and safe holiday weekend!
My Fellow CTIX Shareholders,
I wish to inform you that our attorney, The Ashcroft Law Firm, today filed our Reply Memorandum of Law in support of our Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by The Rosen Law Firm. Our lead counsel, Michael J. Sullivan, and his team once again did a superb job in their response to shred Rosen’s ever-changing complaint with legal precedent, facts and rationale, especially considering that protocol limited Mr. Sullivan to only ten pages to respond to the latest 30-page document filed by Rosen on behalf of the only plaintiff in the case.
We remain confident that this case is completely frivolous and are still of the opinion that Rosen should be dealt sanctions for their flagrant disregard of the law under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act to conduct proper due diligence to ensure misguided lawsuits that can bog down the courts and damage shareholders do not take place. Of course, that is up for the judge to decide, but we are seeking the case to be dismissed with prejudice and for Rosen to face sanctions.
In today’s document, Mr. Sullivan clearly points out to the Court how Rosen has a practice of changing the allegations in the complaint to create a “moving target,” hoping we can’t hit it (or to confuse the court); “cobbles together an equally unsupportable assortment of statements”; and pleads no actionable claims.
In the first paragraph of the document, Mr. Sullivan succinctly summarizes the ludicrousness of the case by stating,
“This case underscores the dichotomy between securities class actions, which serve an important purpose in protecting classes of investors harmed through corporate malfeasance, and misguided lawsuits that have been filed without basis in fact, or for an improper purpose. The hallmarks of the former, of course, are consistency in the core legal theories of liability, factual allegations that are supported by an identifiable or, at a minimum, facially reliable, source, and fraud claims that are not only theoretically possible or conceivable, but plausible. In stark contrast, this lawsuit has none of these hallmarks.”
Rather than go through the document to highlight piece-by-piece Mr. Sullivan’s destruction of Rosen’s complaint, we highly encourage everyone to read the document for him/herself.
For those that have any concerns about Rosen vying for position to modify the complaint yet again (which is actually just standard jargon to try and legitimize the case), a portion of Mr. Sullivan’s closing paragraph addresses this quite simply in stating,
“As a last resort, Plaintiff (in his conclusion) requests leave to amend to file a fourth complaint….Indeed, beginning with the dubious PSLRA certification filed with a hastily-drawn original complaint, this case has been taking on water since its inception. This Court graciously granted leave to file a third complaint (Dkt. 24), and then an extension of time in which to do so (Dkt. 28). Defendants respectfully submit that any further amendment would be futile, and that this Court should dismiss the SAC with prejudice and let this ship go down once and for all.”
The complete document is available for viewing on our website at: http://cellceutix.com/wp-content/uploads/2016...TD-SAC.pdf
Have a happy and safe holiday weekend!
4
Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX) Stock Research Links
Good evening. I'm Louis Rukeyser. This is "Wall $treet Week." Welcome back.
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=cellceutix&Search=Search
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=cellceutix&Search=Search
