I dunno if I'd go so far as to say its a "non-issue".
One of Cel-Sci's primary detractors is the lack of credibility that they have on the street. In my opinion, its the main reason why there is negligible institutional ownership, and its the main reason why the company has a market cap under $300mm as it kicks off a global P3 trial for a potential blockbuster drug.
Penning a marketing deal with a company 3 days after it is incorporated? If Geert was involved it was probably done legally, and IMF probably is grasping at straws trying to prove that the deal's true motivation was to raise capital.
So while IMF may not have a shot at winning the suit outright, the suit points an ominous finger at all the shady tendencies of Cel-Sci, from fundraising deals disguised as marketing deals, to bait-and-switch financing on the back of a worldwide flu epidemic.
Why is it nearly impossible to find any info on Byron?
Why is it necessary for Cel-Sci to keep the CRO a secret when its not common industry practice?
Why did the company set up an "at the market" deal to raise another $30mm now when they still have roughly $30mm in the bank? Are they that worried that they won't be able to raise additional capital 6+ months down the road, or are they worried that 6+ months down the road the PPS will be LOWER than it sits now?!
For anyone who even has this stock on their radar, these are reasonable questions that come up while performing due diligence. People may not believe that IMF will WIN this suit (I don't), but that doesn't mean people aren't looking to the suit for answers to some of the questions that surround this company's clandestine operations.
If the suit were thrown out tomorrow, I think the immediate impact to the PPS would be a small pop of 3-5% that may not even be sustained. More importantly, I think the news could be a catalyst for new buyers, retail and institutional, to start piling in and building positions.