Hoffmann

I wrote an article about $NWBO: reddit.com/r/NWBO/comment… I encourage everyone to read it. What is happening with NWBO is astounding and our persistent retail investor has hung on through it all. I believe we will all be much better off when this story comes to its' ending.

@alphavestcap @ATLnsider @SchlangDaddy I wouldn't be posting someone's contact information. Nothing good comes from that.

$nwbo @alphavestcap @hoffmann6383 @ATLnsider @SchlangDaddy x.com/alphavestcap/s… x.com/kimkep4796/sta… K ASOWITZ LLP A TLANTA B OULDER H OUSTON L OS A NGELES M IAMI N EWARK S AN F RANCISCO W ASHINGTON DC 1633 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 (212) 506-1700 FAX: (212) 506-1800 Stephen W. Tountas Direct Dial: (212) 506-1739 Direct Fax: (212) 500-3550 STountas@kasowitz.com July 29, 2026 VIA ECF Hon. G pasted northwest biotherapeutics sent a letter to judge stein on july 29, 2026, herewith. with what ruling will he reply and long will it take him to reply? I can't predict how Judge Stein will rule or how long he'll take — that's genuinely unknowable from the letter itself. What I can do is give you an honest read of the situation based on what's in this document. Context that matters for handicapping this: This is a response to Defendants' letter motion asking the Court to reconsider its own July 10 order (Dkt. 293). Judges are generally reluctant to reverse themselves absent a genuinely new argument or change in law — reconsideration motions have a high failure rate as a category. NWBO's letter stresses that the Court had already required Defendants to produce trading algorithm evidence in a July 10 order, and that the Court's position dates back over a year, with the judge on the record saying plaintiffs seem entitled to the algorithms and questioning how that could be limited. NWBO argues Defendants' "cold feet" on confidentiality is undercut by their own prior concession, noting Defendants had conceded NWBO's access to the algorithms and code was reasonable with appropriate protections, and the Court had confirmed it understood Defendants weren't objecting to outside counsel and experts having access. NWBO also frames Defendants' proportionality objection as inconsistent, pointing out Defendants now admit they used multiple algorithms or "automated trading systems" to trade NWBO during the relevant period, after previously denying using algorithms at all in interrogatory responses. Why I won't give you a confident prediction: Judge Stein could deny reconsideration outright (the path of least resistance given the procedural posture), grant a narrower version (e.g., requiring production but with tighter confidentiality/attorneys'-eyes-only terms), or ask for supplemental briefing. Timing on S.D.N.Y. letter motions like this typically ranges from days to a few weeks, but it depends entirely on the judge's docket and whether he wants oral argument — nothing in this letter tells us that. If you want, I can pull the docket (via PACER/CourtListener, if you have access, or a web search for any public reporting) to see if Judge Stein has already ruled since July 29, or to check his typical turnaround time on similar motions in this case.

@Flyfishing15331 That's the million dollar question. Could be weeks or months. This Court has been rather quick with their rulings so I'd hope sooner than later.

@hoffmann6383 Thanks Captain! What kind of timeline are we looking at for a ruling? TY!

The Algorithm Battle Continues On the evening of July 29th we saw $NWBO’s response to Defendants Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Court’s requiring Defendants to produce trading algorithms. In this post I'll highlight portions of $NWBO's response, but first some quick background on the case. The Case: Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185, (S.D.N.Y.) The Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/6657959… ➡️The Defendants accused of illegal share price manipulation (and still in the case): ✅Citadel Securities LLC ✅G1 Execution Services ✅GTS Securities LLC ✅Instinet LLC ✅Lime Trading Corp. ✅Virtu Americas LLC The highlights are below. Quotes are all pulled from Docket #304. ➡️The Court, on multiple occasions, has stated that $NWBO would be entitled to the trading algorithms. “Over one year ago, the Court opined: “[I]f there was a trading algorithm that was guiding transactional activity during one of the days that everybody agrees is in play, it seems to me plaintiffs are entitled to that.” Dkt. 216 at 42:2-6; see also id. at 40:23-25 (“Do you disagree that the defendants should have to produce their trading algorithms for NWBO during the entire relevant period? I’m not sure how that gets limited, frankly.”).” ➡️There is precedent for obtaining trading algorithms in civil spoofing cases. “Defendants first claim that they are “aware of no civil spoofing case in which source code has been produced.” Dkt. 299 at 1. They are misinformed. See CFTC v. Thakkar, No. 1:18-cv00619 (N.D. Ill. 2018), ECF No. 44, at ¶ 2 (“Defendant . . . already produced . . . the source code for Trader A’s program.”); see also id., ECF No. 65-1 at ¶¶ 23-26 (civil consent order describing how software code was utilized in spoofing).” ➡️$NWBO publicly displayed quotes did not align with the orders “Citadel’s production shows there were no order events between [redacted] that day, much less any events corresponding to those two public quote updates. CITSEC0003562. Without the source code and related algorithmic materials, NWBO is left to guess which “system” or algorithm generated those quote updates, and why it did so when it did.” ➡️The bid/ask of $NWBO stock remained stagnant even when higher offers were placed. “Moreover, Defendants’ data indicate that their publicly quoted offers sometimes remained stagnant, even while a Defendant received client orders placed at prices equal to or better than Citadel’s “best” displayed offer.” … “It thus appears that Citadel declined to display [redacted]’s order as its public sell-side “best” quote, indicating that Citadel’s quote generation system has its own logic independent of the orders in its order management system.” ➡️$NWBO claims Citadel falsely stated they did not use algorithms to trade $NWBO “Indeed, by refusing to use NWBO’s defined terms, Defendants have long asserted (apparently falsely) that they did not use algorithms to trade NWBO. See, e.g., Ex. 1 (Citadel’s R&Os to NWBO’s 1st Rogs) at 5-6, 14-15 (“Citadel Securities states that it did not use Algorithms to trade NWBO during the Relevant Period and that there are no individuals responsive to this Interrogatory.”).” … “But Defendants now admit they used multiple algorithms (or “automated trading systems”) to trade NWBO during the relevant period. See, e.g., id.; Dkt. 299-1 at ¶ 6; Dkt. 225 at 30:8-13 (“[T]here are not ticker-specific algorithms. It is one giant model that governs marketmaking . . . the model is what determines how orders are routed and handled and everything else.”).” ➡️$NWBO Claims Defendants conceded that algorithms were discoverable “Defendants long ago conceded that NWBO’s access to the algorithms and code was “reasonable” with appropriate protections. See, e.g., Dkt. 225 at 25:24-26:11, 34:15-35:1 (the Court: “I understand that you are not objecting to outside counsel having access, as well, of course as their experts.”). Defendants’ cold feet offer no basis to revisit the issue.3” A big ruling is coming on the algorithm discoverability question.

tbh, I haven't followed the MMTLP case like I have the NWBO case. MMTLP is in bankruptcy and their 'case' is nothing like NWBO's case. NWBO's case is in the civil courts. I'm also not as familiar with bankruptcy proceedings. My commentary on and MMTLP proceedings wouldn't be very enlightening

It would be a great idea to visit an MMTLP space and discuss the cases between the NWBO MMAT, as they are essentially targeting the same entities for the same type of data, albeit in different courtrooms and jurisdictions. These precedents could have significant implications, as we know it. Please let me know if you’re interested, and we can arrange a meeting to compare notes. NWBO MMAT MMTLP

➡️The Battle for the Market Makers’ Trading Algorithms Continues The Case: Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185, (S.D.N.Y.) The Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/6657959… On July 10th we saw the Court state that the market makers’ algorithms are discoverable. "Defendants’ position that they need not produce algorithms related to their trading in $NWBO stock...is rejected." (See Image 1) On July 24th we saw a flurry of filings by the defendant market makers who have been accused of illegally manipulating the share price of $NWBO stock via spoofing. The Defendant Market Makers asked the Court for clarification and/or reconsideration of their decision that the trading algorithms are discoverable. “To the extent the Court’s Order compelled production of the code itself, Defendants respectfully request reconsideration.” (Docket #300) This all comes from a May 2025 $NWBO discovery request for said algorithms: “In May 2025, NWBO served sweeping document requests for “[a]ll trading algorithms and computer programs, including all underlying codes and compilations … and all versions [and] iterations … used to execute trades or place or cancel orders in NWBO shares”; “[a]ll of the Source Code and Executable Code underlying any trading algorithm used by You to execute trades or place or cancel orders in NWBO shares"; and all related documents and communications. E.g., Ex. 3 at 9, 12-13 (RFPs 6-7, 22-27)." (Docket #300) The Defendants argue that the source code is the kind of business interest the courts typically protect from disclosure: "There is no more sensitive proprietary information at a trading firm than its source code. Defendants' code is among their most valuable assets and used to process billions of dollars of order flow each day." (Docket #300) This ruling will have an enormous impact on the case. Stay tuned.

@FlyEaglesFly529 @DanielSickah blocked that person. not worth giving them attention

@DanielSickah @hoffmann6383 Fat boy, seriously just delete your burner account

@Legalking57 yeah, that is definitely a possible outcome here.

@hoffmann6383 $NWBO i’ve personally been involved in this many times and it’s very likely the judge will order it to be produced “In Camera” for his and the jury view only” there’s no reason for it to be Public other than we all want to see it. I’ve been loaning my shares out over 8 yrs 😩

@RPD60 @AttyScott they don't consider what is alleged spoofing to be spoofing

@AttyScott @hoffmann6383 I thought the defendants admitted spoofing and said it is part of normal market making activity (?) Did I recall that correctly?

@jimmie_w34241 @SouthernDrive21 I wouldn't be surprised if they have a hearing. This is a big deal. That being said, it depends on the judge but usually you don't get hearings.

@hoffmann6383 @SouthernDrive21 @hoffmann6383 do you think he will grant them a hearing on it or just give a ruling ?

$NWBO Uncovered new document today that is now available, remaining 100 plus pages are all the communication, exhibits etc. But here is the main one, some lines even redacted. Defendants are asking the judge to reconsider the July 10 order. The filing is a request for a pre-motion conference so they can ask Judge Stein to clarify or reconsider one paragraph of the July 10 discovery order. Specifically, they object to the statement: "If the algorithms were used to conduct the trading in NWBO stock at issue, then evidence about them is plainly relevant and proportional to this case."

@jimmie_w34241 @SouthernDrive21 you never know in litigation but yes, usually they don't change tune unless they see case law where they fear they could be overturned

@SouthernDrive21 One would think with the plain and decisive language from the judge on this matter there would be NO WAY he would change his ruling or language $NWBO but I will rely on the expert @hoffmann6383

@PeptiSense who knows. arguments both ways here. the judge already made a statement regarding the algorithms so I'd imagine the likelihood is that he stays with that opinion

@hoffmann6383 Any expected ruling of the judge?

A letter from $NWBO's attorneys to the Judge that went out last night. I believe the battle to get the algos has started in earnest. It's far from over. It will be interesting to see how this battle plays out as I believe Defendants will do everything in their power to avoid having to turn over said trading algorithms.

📢Market Makers' Algorithms Discoverable "Defendants’ position that they need not produce algorithms related to their trading in NWBO stock...is rejected." [1] (emphasis added) ^^ the words of a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of New York The Case: Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185, (S.D.N.Y.) The Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/6657959… This is a civil case where $NWBO has accused 7 of some of the largest market makers in the world of illegally manipulating their share price via spoofing. One market maker has settled. The remaining market makers include @Citadel, @VirtuFinancial among others. The full quote can be seen in the attached image. While this ruling is a BIG win for $NWBO some other rulings went against $NWBO limiting the scope of what can be discovered. You win some you lose some.

@FlyEaglesFly529 @LexWaters7 @PoliticalWinter he's not worth anyone's time

@LexWaters7 @hoffmann6383 @PoliticalWinter I gave him a heads up but he kept following me around like a puppy

@julie_wade our own resident soothsayer letting us know the future! Appreciate your worthless opinion.

@hoffmann6383 Citadel will not be turning over it's algos in a Civil case. Mandamus coming soon.

The ESI protocol leaves it up in the air who would see the algos, assuming they're even turned over, but if they're turned over I would imagine it would be a VERY small group of people with access to the algorithms. Assuming the algos are turned over I'd also imagine this increases the likelihood of a settlement so nothing is put in public via a trial

@hoffmann6383 My point is ANY compelled exposure of ANY part of their algorithms are potentially devastating to them. Once process has begun, they don't know where it will end.

@alphavestcap a lot of discovery is done outside public view so we don't know if there is a date, which makes question #2 premature.

$nwbo @alphavestcap @hoffmann6383 1) Is there a date deadline for the defendants to hand over the algorithims to $nwbo ? 2) Can the defendants file objections to further delay the handing over of the algorithms? x.com/hoffmann6383/s…

@MichaelFos6qrr tiny

@hoffmann6383 What do you think the odds are of a settlement by July 31?

@Investisco hopefully but you never know with litigation

@hoffmann6383 Huge! Enough to force them to settle soon.

@PoliticalWinter that's the hope for anyone backing nwbo but with litigation you can't guarantee any results

@hoffmann6383 Wow. That was the key ruling that everyone knew was going to make this case turn one way or the other. This will now not go to trial, and the market makers will offer big, big dollars to avoid disclosing algorithms.