(Total Views: 1117)
Posted On: 03/27/2021 12:23:22 AM
Post# of 148908
I finally tracked down the lawsuit here are the irrelevant portions.
If Iliad sold shares directly to the market rather than going through a brokerage it is Iliad who was in violation of SEC regs not Cytodyn. Whether or not leronlimab is commercially viable for COVID-19 has yet to be seen. But approval and commercial sales for COVID-19 of any size anywhere would nullify that point.
What was known by the company until shortly before disclosure was based on MOA before mild/moderate and EIND results for severe/critical. Neither of which would have led the company to believe that leronlimab was not commercially viable for COVID-19.
Following after in the lawsuit is a lot of insinuations with little to no basis in fact.
A request is not a submittal.
The last evidence of any paid newsletter articles was early 2019. No proof of paid internet postings.
The only thing anyone from the company said about OWS is that Cytodyn had been in contact with them.
Shift Media Labs has never characterized itself as a stock promoter. It's owner is a tv producer of garbage and it's online presence consists of one podcast and one video.
https://securities.stanford.edu/filings-docum...V05190.pdf
Quote:
In addition to overstating the viability of Leronlimab as a COVID-19 treatment, CytoDyn also engaged in a wrongful scheme with its lender, Iliad Research and Trading L.P. (“Iliad”), and its principal John Fife (“Fife”), whereby Iliad and other Fife entities operated as an unregistered securities dealer for CytoDyn.
. Following the Individual Defendants’ cash-out of CytoDyn shares at artificially inflated prices, the price of CytoDyn shares dropped precipitously to the detriment of Plaintiff and the class. The market has learned that CytoDyn’s development and marketing of Leronlimab as a
treatment for COVID-19 was not commercially viable for CytoDyn
If Iliad sold shares directly to the market rather than going through a brokerage it is Iliad who was in violation of SEC regs not Cytodyn. Whether or not leronlimab is commercially viable for COVID-19 has yet to be seen. But approval and commercial sales for COVID-19 of any size anywhere would nullify that point.
Quote:
Plaintiff purchased CytoDyn shares at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.
What was known by the company until shortly before disclosure was based on MOA before mild/moderate and EIND results for severe/critical. Neither of which would have led the company to believe that leronlimab was not commercially viable for COVID-19.
Following after in the lawsuit is a lot of insinuations with little to no basis in fact.
Quote:
CytoDyn Submits its Top-line Report from its Phase 2 COVID-19 Trial to the U.S. FDA and Requests Emergency Use Approval
The Top-line Report has been sent to the regulatory authorities in Mexico, and will be provided to U.K. MHRA, and E.U. EMA, with requests for emergency use approval
On September 16, 2020, Defendant Pourhassan was forced to admit that no formal EUA request was actually made with the FDA, despite the Company claiming for weeks that it had done so.
A request is not a submittal.
Quote:
Like Galena, CytRx, and McCarthy’s entities, CytoDyn has also aggressively employed stock promotion firms that create misleading newsletters and internet postings to hype investment in CytoDyn and promote the use of Leronlimab as a COVID-19 treatment.
The last evidence of any paid newsletter articles was early 2019. No proof of paid internet postings.
Quote:
Following the pump of CytoDyn stock price and cash-out by Company insiders and long-term shareholders, Defendants’ scheme began to unravel. For instance, on August 26, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that CytoDyn was not being considered for Operation Warp Speed. According to a senior administration official interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, “CytoDyn had only completed a preliminary qualification for being included in the initiative.”
The only thing anyone from the company said about OWS is that Cytodyn had been in contact with them.
Quote:
On September 17, 2020, CytoDyn was sued in the 11th Judicial Circuit for MiamiDate County, Florida by stock promoter Shift Media Lab for alleged failure to pay for its stock promotion services. Shift Media Lab vaguely alleged in its complaint that it was providing
“services” for CytoDyn for three months at $25,000 per month. Shift Media Lab was previously listed by CytoDyn in a disclosure statement to the OTCQB Venture Market as providing “Brand Awareness” for CytoDyn.
Shift Media Labs has never characterized itself as a stock promoter. It's owner is a tv producer of garbage and it's online presence consists of one podcast and one video.
https://securities.stanford.edu/filings-docum...V05190.pdf
(7)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
