In 2005, "Regulation SHO" was enacted; requiring that broker-dealers have grounds to believe that shares will be available for a given stock transaction, and requiring that delivery take place within a limited time period.
As part of its response to the crisis in the North American markets in 2008, the SEC issued a temporary order restricting short-selling in the shares of 19 financial firms deemed systemically important, by reinforcing the penalties for failing to deliver the shares in time. Effective September 18, 2008, amid claims that aggressive short selling had played a role in the failure of financial giant Lehman Brothers, the SEC extended and expanded the rules to remove exceptions and to cover all companies, including market makers
In 2008, the SEC banned what it called "abusive naked short selling" in the United States, as well as some other jurisdictions, as a method of driving down share prices. Failing to deliver shares is legal under certain circumstances, and naked short selling is not per se illegal. In the United States, naked short selling is covered by various SEC regulations which prohibit the practice.
Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is the practice of short-selling a tradable asset of any kind without first borrowing the security or ensuring that the security can be borrowed, as is conventionally done in a short sale. When the seller does not obtain the shares within the required time frame, the result is known as a "failure to deliver". The transaction generally remains open until the shares are acquired by the seller, or the seller's broker settles the trade
Some commentators have contended that despite regulations, naked shorting is widespread and that the SEC regulations are poorly enforced. Its critics have contended that the practice is susceptible to abuse, can be damaging to targeted companies struggling to raise capital, and has led to numerous bankruptcies. However, other commentators have said that the naked shorting issue is a "devil theory", not a bona fide market issue and a waste of regulatory resources
smart money is ready to move it higher. float is very small against the huge short interest. expect that a large number of the shorts are naked.
dont forget test as of 1/1 becomes preventative and covered at 100% + there is growing recommendations for men of effected women to be tested when a + id is made. men can pass defect to daughters.
will the shorts ever exhaust? with every news item they just wait for the pop, then pile on new shorts.
i would guess that revenue is still increasing?
other providers of the test BRCA dont have significant third party coverage in place? just wondering.........
must be tons of naked shorts. shares being created for shorting purposes....i hope not but could be. will be one hell of a rally if the right issues get resolved the righ way...CMS reimbursement, IP issues, suits, etc.
Myriad is asking the court to rule that LabCorp has infringed these patents and that it be enjoined from selling its BRCAssure service, as well as unspecified damages.
This latest suit follows a series of patent infringement actions Myriad has filed against others who have launched BRCA tests and services in recent months following the US Supreme Court's decision this past summer that patent claims on isolated gene sequences were invalid.
However, the court also found several of Myriad's claims on synthetic, or cDNA, patent eligible. With this two-part ruling, Myriad believes its patent suite for BRACAnalysis is still intact and competitors cannot perform BRCA testing without infringing its still-valid IP. As such, when competing firms, such as Ambry Genetics, Gene by Gene, GeneDx, and Quest Diagnostics, launched BRCA testing, Myriad sued them. The most recent firm to be sued by Myriad, before LabCorp, was Invitae, which followed this week with a countersuit against Myriad.
make that 6.......
darn it - cant post the link....
Myriad Genetics Sues LabCorp
December 04, 2013
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – Myriad Genetics has filed a lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America alleging infringement of 11 US patents covering its BRCA 1 and 2 testing franchise.
The suit, filed yesterday in the US District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, followed LabCorp's launch on Monday of its Comprehensive BRCAssure BRCA 1/2 Analysis for identifying patients with BRCA mutations who are at risk of developing breast, ovarian, and other cancers. LabCorp said the analysis includes full gene sequencing of BRCA1/2 genes and duplication/deletion testing, with a variant of unknown significance rate of less than 5 percent.
According to Myriad's lawsuit the offering of the BRCAssure testing service infringes several patents, including Nos. 5,709,999; 5,747,282; 5,753,441; 5,837,492; 6,033,857, held by various owners — including the University of Utah, the University of Pennsylvania, Endorecherche, and others, all of whom are listed as plaintiffs in this action —and exclusively licensed to Myriad. In addition, the suit alleges infringement of US Patent Nos. 5,654,155; 5,750,400; 6,051,379; 6,951,721; 7,250,497; and 6,083,698, which are all owned by Myriad.
continued next post.