Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fitzhughlaw who wrote (62786)	8/7/2024 6:44:56 PM
From: allatwwk	5 Recommendations Recommended By diaperdaddy jhcimmu KeeptheFaith rodneyh07 suite2321 Respond to of 63304

will always be grateful to Fitz for helping us understand all the complexities around IMMU. I also, was among the ones he described as "too loose with language". One thing I got out of it all was an appreciation for how judges (independent of their specific title) were able to allow things to play out. My impatience made sense to me, but the process played out smartly. In the IMMU case, my hindsight evaluation was the judge (forget his exact title) allowed the case to flow into a legal cul-de-sac where Doc and Cindy had no way out. When it got there, it ended. I am curious about SLAPP My sense is these laws were largely designed to stop the big/powerful from intimidating and pushing around the small/weak. For example, entities with deep pockets forcing those without deep pockets to deal in areas where deep pockets are necessary. I just don't see SAVA as big/powerful, nor do I see the shorts as small/weak. I'd like to better understand this, not just with SAVA, but in broader strokes.

To: Fitzhughlaw who wrote (62786)	4/8/2025 9:37:41 AM
From: Fitzhughlaw	1 Recommendation Recommended By Olecranon Respond to of 63304

This is why I looked askance at some of the cheering from the peanut gallery about how SAVA's attorneys had "ripped the Magistrate a new one" and Matt Nachtrab's mischaracterization of the former defendants' lawsuit against SAVA for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. I could NEVER see a rationale for the initiation of SAVA's action (and as you'll recall, the company's hotshot attorneys ended up getting their asses kicked, having to eventually dismiss that case and leave the courthouse whimpering). Now the former defendants have SAVA on the run, and with good reason.... Cassava Sciences must face malicious prosecution lawsuit over Alzheimer's drug NEW YORK, March 26 (Reuters) - The biotechnology company Cassava Sciences failed on Wednesday to end a malicious prosecution lawsuit by doctors and short-sellers who expressed doubts about its experimental, soon-to-be-discontinued Alzheimer's drug simufilam. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon in Manhattan said Adrian Heilbut, Jesse Brodkin, Enea Milioris, David Bredt and Geoffrey Pitt could try to prove that Cassava knew or should have known that it could not win its defamation lawsuit against them, which it dismissed in August. reuters.com