As Y does not allow links and the FT does not allow the article to be copied and pasted,
please search for the article title: "Mystery objectors delay weight loss drug"
Author: Andrew Jack
Published 21 April 2013
This article is finally saying what some of us have been saying for months. I guess when FT says it people listen. I hope it leads to a DOJ investigation AFTER the scheduling is complete. At least this should quieten roseys that "no, God forbid, what corruption, there is no corruption, nobody tried to slow the scheduling down, if anything those who left positive comments should be blamed, Wesley Day wasn't real, blah blah... "
As if the DEA is influenced by the posts on the referenced site or you cry babies with your stupid conspiracy theories!
Blame VVUS blame the DEA, how about you focus on ARNA management and this POS stock.
Some ARNA longs worked together, behind the scenes, to get this story into the FT. It was not possible to get Wesley Day's name into the article, as the connection to VVUS could not be proven to a standard that would satisfy the paper's lawyers, particularly as the FT is a British paper and the libel laws are much tougher there than in the USA. So, it is what it is... Whether the story could be developed further by this or another paper (also contacted) depends on new facts emerging. As an FYI, it is not illegal to post a comment anonymously on the FR, but all comments sent into the FR must be accompanied by a name (it need not be posted publicly, but must accompany the comment). I have heard some arguments that providing a false name may be an offense, but the chances of it leading to a prosecution seem pretty low. I have also heard it argued that a FoIA request could release the original submission (with name), but that's a lot of work and needs legal skills we don't have. Finally, the FR/DEA would in theory have the capacity to track the IP address of the computer from which non-compliant (misleading names) comments were submitted, but again, it seems unlikely they would act. Various ARNA longs have tracked down some of these facts/information, but at least some of them prefer to fly below the radar on this one.
Credit should be given where credit is due and I laud and applaud those who highlighted this injustice in the Financial Times.
The dirty tricks campaign on Arena by the HFs and their narrow pursuit of self interest with the sole purpose of personal financial gain and total disregard to democratic norms will eventually back fire on VVUS and those behind the campaign.
This in my opinion is unwanted attention VVUS is bringing upon their own company, and I’ve no doubt a mountain of evidence is being assembled by Arena’s Attorneys for a law case some time in the future.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Wait a minute Iego, you're the guy that claimed it was an ARNA long who set Wesley Day up. You're the guy who disparaged all the positive, non-anonymous postings on the FR. But now you bring us this breaking news "Some ARNA longs worked together, behind the scenes ..." to get the story into print. Sheesh.
Also there is nothing criminally unlawful about posting on the FR with a fictitious name. That is anybody's prerogative. There may also be some sense to it some times. I know individuals who wished to respond to DHHS OHRP's request for public comment to some rather ill-advised proposals to changes to the Common Rule. Their opinions were at odds with their bosses in the federal government - and yet they had every right to be heard without their bosses knowing they were not buying into these proposals. Given that some comments can almost be self-identifying depending on the subject matter and the nature of the comment, these folks opted for fictitious names - keep in mind the name used was not nearly as important as the content of the comment - and most FR requests for comments don't have nearly the potential to directly benefit/financially hurt specific commercial entities as the current scheduling. And as you say, the IP address would be known if anybody with the government ever really wanted to put in that effort.
So no criminal liability ... but potential civil liability whether anonymously posted, fictitious-name posted, or accurately identified in posting - but torts (and especially the actual damages) are tough to prove - and that is after obtaining the identity of who you are going to sue.
How does any of this help move the pps of ARNA up a this point? Which is ultimately the only thing you really care about as an investor, no? What is the line from here to there? Seems like a lot of work for very little pay off, if any.
Mystery objectors delay weight loss drug
By Andrew Jack
The launch of a new weight loss drug is being held up by the US Drug Enforcement Authority, after a surge in anonymous objections that some investors fear is manipulating the process.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below,
Belviq, developed by Arena, the US biotech company, was authorised as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration last June, but has yet to be ratified by the DEA under a process designed to ensure controlled use of medicines that come with a risk of abuse.
The FDA recommended that Belviq, known generically as Lorcaserin, be classified as a “schedule IV” drug, a low-risk category, which gives regulators some supervisory powers to oversee prescriptions.
But an unusually high number of 69 comments have been filed on Belviq, creating a greater workload for DEA officials in making an assessment.
The stalling has allowed Qsymia, a weight-loss drug made by Vivus, a rival US biotech, to gain a lead over Belviq, even though the drug was approved after Belviq by the FDA. While most of the 47 positive remarks on the DEA website are identified by the name of the author, 19 of 22 negative ones are anonymous, sparking debate over whether individuals with a vested interest in delaying Belviq have been posting criticisms.
Sentiment: Strong Buy