I see what you mean, but don't think that the Rose
Post# of 72446
Posted On: 01/01/2016 11:23:14 AM
Re: scottsmith #17105
I see what you mean, but don't think that the Rosen business is what's really holding the stock down. What's holding it down has been the concerted effort by the short cabal. When there is good news, anyone who was on the fence thinking that maybe Rosen was right, will realize the enormity of the BS they've believed and will buy back in.
I just don't believe that good clinical trial results will be blown off because of some ambulance chaser who is now fighting for his life.
What the Rosen firm did certainly seems to have violated the professional responsibility code. Judges are very busy and none of them want to waste their time on frivolous cases. I truly can't imagine a scenario where this judge is going to want to hear a case where the Rosen firm's scenario is that they've done some digging and think they can tarnish the principals of the company, for alleged actions far in the past, which were not material to anyone's investment in the stock. (Apparently they're going to make some new claims about Menon. Well, the fact that NO ONE knew about these claims before shows that they are not material, so they have nothing to do with the case. Rosen would have had to allege them when the case was filed, because whatever they are claiming has not been out there before.) The fact is, Rosen has NO evidence except some anonymous short-seller on the internet to back up their most important allegations -- their bogus claim that the science doesn't work -- and that the offices are empty. Both of those claims have been proven to be untrue, and were proven untrue BEFORE Rosen filed the suit.
They are so screwed.
I just don't believe that good clinical trial results will be blown off because of some ambulance chaser who is now fighting for his life.
What the Rosen firm did certainly seems to have violated the professional responsibility code. Judges are very busy and none of them want to waste their time on frivolous cases. I truly can't imagine a scenario where this judge is going to want to hear a case where the Rosen firm's scenario is that they've done some digging and think they can tarnish the principals of the company, for alleged actions far in the past, which were not material to anyone's investment in the stock. (Apparently they're going to make some new claims about Menon. Well, the fact that NO ONE knew about these claims before shows that they are not material, so they have nothing to do with the case. Rosen would have had to allege them when the case was filed, because whatever they are claiming has not been out there before.) The fact is, Rosen has NO evidence except some anonymous short-seller on the internet to back up their most important allegations -- their bogus claim that the science doesn't work -- and that the offices are empty. Both of those claims have been proven to be untrue, and were proven untrue BEFORE Rosen filed the suit.
They are so screwed.
(0)
(0)