EXACTLY . . . notice the affirmation to defend DID NOT mention the lying source . . . that's the accusers issue . . . what AF did is done, defend the suit, then attack for damages . . .
i read the article . . . what our law team needs is the CA win in hand before they can sue, or cross complaint within the CA . . . all in good time . . . if they were planning to sue AF, we would have seen it already . . . think about it, what better evidence is there than proof in court AF lied, ruled on by a judge . . . no need to litigate . . . prove liability, then sue . . .
it won't happen . . . no announcement . . . when the CA case is dismissed or won, THEN the lawyers will FILE for damages . . . perhaps with a PR, but years from now . . .
i bet half dropped out . . . the real problem for them is no other news outlet followed AF's lead . . . his hit piece stands alone, no peer review, so to speak . . . i think the case is fizzling out . . . the CEO has every right to declare his product outstanding . . . ever see a CEO claim, "our product is inferior junk" . . . i think AF was just offering an opinion, and the CA may have surprised him too . . .
they sure seem a bit antsy . . . i wish they would relax and let the next few months play out . . . it's summer, time to mellow out with a drink . . .
you only have to cover 6.5 mil shares . . . no big wup . . .
so short it!
at 1.45 some of us saw value . . . we bought it . . . please respect our trades, mine was with house money anyway . . . do you really think you can talk people out of their positions? . . . that's just silly . . .
if we're still at 1.45 when the SI drops to a normal level, i'll sell . . . in the meantime, i'm not the one paying interest . . . did you notice the record SI today?
i bet he's john_nelson too . . . same attitude in writing . . . let them bash all they want, ISR will fly in spite of them . . .
i counted 10 in the race for lead plaintiff . . . i'm sure we'll get more reminders, but i bet half of them gave up already . . .
the defense PR was written perfectly . . . OUR lawyers DON'T CARE what AF wrote . . . no mention of it . . .
i truly believe many of the CA chasers wanted to get in on rosen's scam . . . what can they say in court, "but AF said . . . " . . . too funny . . .
DON'T, he might try to kill the patient to save his image . . . lets hope other networks pick up the story . . . saving lives used to mean something. . .
you two should get a room, you can register under the name macclellan, hauck, or ashkelon . . .
wrong stock, wrong board, and neither of you own ISR . . .
what company are you referring to? . . . or is this the "mystery competitor" excuse? . . . please cite the trial or peer review, i'll take a look . . .
i've flipped it 5 times,now playing with house money . . . prostate is going down, new treatments are in R+D . . . i'll get out on the next pop . . . and come back . . .
also a good point . . . if the PPS crosses 5, insts and analysts will show up . . . so far maxim stands alone . . .
all of your signs point to a 3-4 cap . . . i'll agree, at this time . . . if the treatment goes mainstream, you're toast . . .
there are only 2 documents for evidence . . . READ THE CA FILING . . .
exhibit A: the company PR
exhibit B: the article by AF
no witnesses, experts . . . one doc called the other doc a lie . . . THAT'S IT . . .
adam could be wrong you know, not one other news company picked this up . . . makes you go HMMMMMMMMMMM . . .
this case could fizzle . . . 50/50 imo . . . there is no other evidence other than the PR and the hit piece . . . one day trade . . .
let's examine the stock prior to the PR . . . does anyone believe a huge shareholder jumped in for 50 mil shares based on the PR? . . . no way . . . i think it was traders, kicking a ball . . . they will not count as a lead plaintiff . . . is there a lead plaintiff? . . . who knows . . . i haven't checked how many lawyers dropped between investigating and filing . . . i know rosen was first on both, go figure, lol . . . looks like a RICO scam to me . . .
are you in the class? . . . ONLY shares purchased on may 20-21 are eligible . . . the rest of us are only spectators . . .
if you added on may 20-21, then ONLY the additional shares are in the CA . . .
unless you are trying to be the lead plaintiff, WAIT for the court to assign the lawyer/lead plaintiff . . . this will occur soon after 7/23 . . . meet your new lawyer, lol . . .
if you sold the shares since, IT DOES NOT MATTER . . . the shares still qualify . . . there is no need tohold the shares to be included . . .
and most important, even if you disagree with the frivilous suit, JOIN . . . if it's dismissed, it cost you nothing . . . if it's settled, the insurance WILL PAY OUT likely a 2.5 mil settlement . . . TAKE THE MONEY . . . the rest of us longs will understand . . .
JOINING THE CA CANNOT HURT ISR . . . it just divides the potential pie into smaller pieces . . .