Given that I received a DM last night that forwarded a link to a 41 page Order issued on June 25 in a class action lawsuit against CYDY, Nader, Dr Kelly, and Michael Mulholland, I feel obligated to supplement my prior post on this subject in order to provide more accurate information.
This lawsuit, as my prior post suggested, does allege insider trading and securities laws violations against the individual defendants, but it also asserts securities laws violations against CYDY based on allegations of false and misleading public statements between March 27,2020 and March 30, 2022 related to the HIV BLA and the covid CD10 and CD12 clinical trials. The above referenced Order denied defendants Rule 12(b)(6) procedural motion to dismiss the plaintiff's' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Consequently, this case can now proceed to the discovery phase and eventual trial unless it is subsequently dismissed upon a motion for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery or settled at some point in the process.
Please understand that motions to dismiss on the pleadings are commonplace in civil litigation and are often denied because, for purposes of the motion, the allegations in the complaint must be considered as true and the court's analysis is limited to whether, if true, the allegations state a claim(s) upon which the plaintiffs can recover damages.
I cannot comment further on any financial exposure that CYDY may face related to this lawsuit because, even with the benefit of having read this 41 page Order, its contents provide only a scintilla of the information and probative evidence available to Wilmer, Cutter, the highly regarded national law firm identified in the Order as CYDY's counsel. Consequently, although I am not in a position, as a shareholder, to draw any reliable opinions or conclusions about the further course of this lawsuit, I will read with interest any statements CYDY may choose to issue in the coming days regarding this matter. Unless or until that happens, I will not be commenting further, either publicly or privately.
I am unable to post the link upon which I was able to read the above referenced Order because I am incompetent in such matters and, in any event, it is not my link. However, for those board members interested in obtaining pleadings and Orders in this matter, this federal case is venued in the Western District of Washington as Case No. 21-5190-BHS under the caption of Courter vs Cytodyn, et al.
All the best,
Jake
This lawsuit, as my prior post suggested, does allege insider trading and securities laws violations against the individual defendants, but it also asserts securities laws violations against CYDY based on allegations of false and misleading public statements between March 27,2020 and March 30, 2022 related to the HIV BLA and the covid CD10 and CD12 clinical trials. The above referenced Order denied defendants Rule 12(b)(6) procedural motion to dismiss the plaintiff's' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Consequently, this case can now proceed to the discovery phase and eventual trial unless it is subsequently dismissed upon a motion for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery or settled at some point in the process.
Please understand that motions to dismiss on the pleadings are commonplace in civil litigation and are often denied because, for purposes of the motion, the allegations in the complaint must be considered as true and the court's analysis is limited to whether, if true, the allegations state a claim(s) upon which the plaintiffs can recover damages.
I cannot comment further on any financial exposure that CYDY may face related to this lawsuit because, even with the benefit of having read this 41 page Order, its contents provide only a scintilla of the information and probative evidence available to Wilmer, Cutter, the highly regarded national law firm identified in the Order as CYDY's counsel. Consequently, although I am not in a position, as a shareholder, to draw any reliable opinions or conclusions about the further course of this lawsuit, I will read with interest any statements CYDY may choose to issue in the coming days regarding this matter. Unless or until that happens, I will not be commenting further, either publicly or privately.
I am unable to post the link upon which I was able to read the above referenced Order because I am incompetent in such matters and, in any event, it is not my link. However, for those board members interested in obtaining pleadings and Orders in this matter, this federal case is venued in the Western District of Washington as Case No. 21-5190-BHS under the caption of Courter vs Cytodyn, et al.
All the best,
Jake
21
