Hoffmann

4.4K posts

Hoffmann banner
Hoffmann

Hoffmann

@hoffmann6383

Attorney. Investor. Tweets are my own opinion and DO NOT represent investment, legal or medical advice.

USA Katılım Mayıs 2022
82 Takip Edilen3K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
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.
English
47
159
457
167.1K
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
@sonkorinvest It appears from the just recent order that the answer to your question would be no.
English
0
1
6
366
Sheriar Khorsandian
Sheriar Khorsandian@sonkorinvest·
@hoffmann6383 Thank you Hoff - your posts are invaluable and truly appreciated. Can the defendants spend a minimal time and in essence no effort in their investigation and then ask NWBO to submit their analysis? Thank you.
English
1
0
4
545
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
$NWBO Spoofing Case Update – Motion Battle The Case: Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185, (S.D.N.Y.) The Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/6657959… In this post we will discuss the Court’s ruling on a recent discovery related motion filed by Defendants. You can see the history of this motion from my posts in this thread: x.com/hoffmann6383/s… Essentially, the Defendants are asking $NWBO to specifically identify the spoofing orders and then limit the case to said spoofing orders. It is a very important ruling that could impact the scope of $NWBO’s claims, and thus their damages. Here is what the Defendants are asking for: "The Court should order NWBO to provide—within seven days and for all Spoofing Episodes that survived the motion to dismiss—the same color-coded, calculation-explained identification it provided in its Appendix. Consistent with Judge Schofield’s order in Harrington, NWBO should further be limited to using only the identified orders at summary judgment and trial." Last week, the Defendants’ Motion was DENIED. This is a big win for $NWBO. $NWBO already provided the Defendants the trading data. The Court is telling Defendants they have to analyze the raw data themselves and not depend on $NWBO to do that for them. There is one small caveat: “If, as, and when Defendants are unable to reconcile their own calculations with the allegations of the SAC with respect to a particular Spoofing Episode based on the methodology NWBO has explained, Defendants may bring the issue to NWBO’s attention and ask NWBO to identify how the particular calculation(s) were derived. The Court hereby orders NWBO to provide such identifications to Defendants upon request.” This ruling was a big win for $NWBO. We lost the first round of this motion battle, but won the second round. Discovery goes on!
English
13
29
182
14.9K
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
@BobRafael1952 a while. we've already seen one continuance and I suspect by the end we will see many more
English
1
1
13
586
Chad Oltman
Chad Oltman@ChadOltman·
$NWBO Step by step.
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383

$NWBO Spoofing Case Update – Motion Battle The Case: Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, 1:22-cv-10185, (S.D.N.Y.) The Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/6657959… In this post we will discuss the Court’s ruling on a recent discovery related motion filed by Defendants. You can see the history of this motion from my posts in this thread: x.com/hoffmann6383/s… Essentially, the Defendants are asking $NWBO to specifically identify the spoofing orders and then limit the case to said spoofing orders. It is a very important ruling that could impact the scope of $NWBO’s claims, and thus their damages. Here is what the Defendants are asking for: "The Court should order NWBO to provide—within seven days and for all Spoofing Episodes that survived the motion to dismiss—the same color-coded, calculation-explained identification it provided in its Appendix. Consistent with Judge Schofield’s order in Harrington, NWBO should further be limited to using only the identified orders at summary judgment and trial." Last week, the Defendants’ Motion was DENIED. This is a big win for $NWBO. $NWBO already provided the Defendants the trading data. The Court is telling Defendants they have to analyze the raw data themselves and not depend on $NWBO to do that for them. There is one small caveat: “If, as, and when Defendants are unable to reconcile their own calculations with the allegations of the SAC with respect to a particular Spoofing Episode based on the methodology NWBO has explained, Defendants may bring the issue to NWBO’s attention and ask NWBO to identify how the particular calculation(s) were derived. The Court hereby orders NWBO to provide such identifications to Defendants upon request.” This ruling was a big win for $NWBO. We lost the first round of this motion battle, but won the second round. Discovery goes on!

English
1
3
33
1.9K
rj
rj@sharpie510·
UK Parliament House of Commons "Debate on a motion on increasing survival rates on brain tumours" is now the current topic of discussion starting at 20:01. Watch the livestream: parliamentlive.tv/event/index/e3… $nwbo #dcvax #gbm #glioblastoma
rj@sharpie510

As of this posting, the House of Commons meeting is at "Update on Standards in Public Life". The "Debate on a motion on increasing survival rates on brain tumours" is upcoming. The live stream can be followed here: parliamentlive.tv/event/index/e3… #gbm #glioblastoma $nwbo #dcvax

English
1
1
23
2K
rj
rj@sharpie510·
@hoffmann6383 I did watch. No word of #DCVax by name, but it was implicitly mentioned at 20:50:24. IMO, the MPs (even those that had mentioned DCVax in past parliamentary debates) are deliberately silent on DCVax because of the pending @MHRAgovuk decision.
English
1
0
12
208
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
I generally agree with this sentiment although I'd say these approval windows are based on actual data. The only real data we have. As you point out, everyone is adding up clock on/off days for 1-3 RFIs and coming up with numbers they keep pushing back bc this is taking so long. The data of approval timelines from the 2nd CHM meeting is a completely different way to look at this timeline, imo. A better way. Based on actual data from a date certain (2nd chm) versus a prediction of a timeline for an unknown number of RFIs that take an unknown number of days to resolve.
English
1
0
1
127
Freddie ₿
Freddie ₿@Bullsey71772634·
It’s funny every time the expected deadline is passed all people find another good reason why it’s a new later timeline. So can’t really use this for anything IMO. Tired of hoping each time and when that deadline is passed we need to use a lot of hopium for the new timeline. Just approve this damn thing and start saving lives
English
1
0
4
134
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
$NWBO This is a good sign. While not 100% there is a lot of data showing that a regulatory decision usually happens within 3 months of a second CHM meeting. app.box.com/s/jv487awvqzzs… Thanks Lykiri
Hoffmann tweet media
English
10
31
205
13.2K
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
@FatboyChan74370 @smith348572 I believe the data says the likely approval windows are 3 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post 2nd CHM. That means we're looking at late February or late May, imo.
English
3
2
22
815
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
@TommyBaxendale @Mionaer1 just posted in a different spot, but tunnelvisionplenty on ihub. Sorry, I don't have links saved. There were a lot of relevant posts on the topic.
English
0
0
2
152
Mionaer
Mionaer@Mionaer1·
$NWBO Submission date 2023. Now it's almost February 2026. This is insane. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that our consultants are a bunch of incompetent idiots. They've already botched the submission.
English
3
0
25
2.3K
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
that is using reasonable timeframes but we've seen the mhra isn't fast. I'm using the data from tunnelvisionplenty on ihub where he looks at approximately 22 different drugs using the MHRA's national route (not IRP). That data says the likely approval windows are 3 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. I don't have all the links saved or else I'd provide them right here. It's not just one link but many. Obviously, we're past 3 weeks from the CHM. Three months comes up at the end of February. I believe this is $NWBO's next approval window. Otherwise, we're looking late May as the next likely approval window.
English
2
0
4
138
Tommy Bax 🇬🇧 🇹🇼 🇪🇺
@hoffmann6383 @Mionaer1 I'm working off 45-50days +2wks for Xmas/New Yr +1wk for 1st of kind complex ATMP. This is window for an outright Std Approval. So next wk is the end of window🤞 If no approval by then the chance of CMA increases. If so +1-3wks negotiation. So yes, end of Feb/ early Mar! $NWBO
English
2
1
12
1.1K
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
CHM data points to a window of approval for $NWBO's DCVax-L at 3 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post 2nd CHM meeting. Of course, there are also data points in between. Next likely approval window is late February per the CHM data. You will have to explain the February 5th date to me!
English
7
2
54
4.1K
Tommy Bax 🇬🇧 🇹🇼 🇪🇺
@Mionaer1 The length of time is utterly ridiculous indeed, but if they had botched the submission then we wouldn't have got as far as a 2nd CHM meeting. There are no other treatments in the MHRA system that the 27/28th meeting cld possibly be about. I believe prior to 5th Feb we have news.
English
1
0
30
973
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
@AXuring2 there will be motions to compel before any clocks run out. sanctions if you win the motion and other side doesn't comply
English
0
0
2
60
Alen Xuring
Alen Xuring@AXuring2·
@hoffmann6383 If it's possible to just run out the clock, then how can they ever be forced(?) to comply? What's the penalty for noncompliance? I.e. running out the clock and submitting minimal/insubstantial documents?
English
1
0
2
60
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
Spoofing Case Update - $NWBO v. Citadel, et al Case No.: 1:22-cv-10185 Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/6657959… Today we saw a letter filing by $NWBO asking for all the case management deadlines to be extended by 120 days. $NWBO's counsel blames the substitution of counsel, Les Goldman's passing, delay tactics by Defendants, among other things. I've attached an image of $NWBO's proposed deadlines. The Defendants do not consent to the extension of deadlines. Some interesting points in today's letter: ➡️Current Document Production "NWBio has so far produced 3,056 documents. Defendants have produced far less. Defendant G1 Execution Services LLC has only produced 10 documents, Defendant Virtu Americas LLC produced 26 documents, and Defendant Citadel Securities LLC produced 132 documents. The other Defendants—Canaccord Genuity LLC, GTS Securities LLC, Instinet LLC, and Lime Trading Corp.—have produced no documents at all." ➡️Nonparty Subpoenas "There have also been delays in receiving productions from nonparties. For example, in June 2025, NWBio served subpoenas to Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”)—both of which are critical sources of relevant information concerning the trades at issue. Following NWBio’s persistent inquiries, DTCC only recently produced documents and FINRA is still gathering documents for future production, with partial production anticipated by mid-January and an uncertain timeline to complete production of archived data. Based on information gleaned from DTCC’s production, NWBio served additional follow-up requests to Defendants, for which responses are due today. Moreover, in October 2025, NWBio served a subpoena to nonparty OTC Link LLC, the scope of production for which is still being negotiated. All of the foregoing documents are critical to NWBio’s prosecution of this case."
Hoffmann tweet media
English
21
11
150
15.4K
Hoffmann
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383·
@jimmie_w34241 sometime next few months 😉 it's really hard to predict the timing on these things without direct involvement
English
1
0
15
534
Jimmie Rogers
Jimmie Rogers@jimmie_w34241·
@hoffmann6383 From the Document they are being difficult which we all expected in your opinion how long before we request a Motion to compel. Thanks in advance for your insight $NWBO 🍷
Jimmie Rogers tweet mediaJimmie Rogers tweet media
English
2
1
26
2K
kristen shaughnessy
kristen shaughnessy@kshaughnessy2·
$NWBO At what point does the judge overseeing Northwest Biotherapeutics’ spoofing lawsuit tell all the defendants and non parties,like the DTC and FINRA, to hand over the requested documents? “…NWBio has so far produced 3,056 documents. Defendants have produced far less. Defendant G1 Execution Services LLC has only produced 10 documents, Defendant Virtu Americas LLC produced 26 documents, and Defendant Citadel Securities LLC produced 132 documents. The other Defendants—Canaccord Genuity LLC, GTS Securities LLC, Instinet LLC, and Lime Trading Corp.—have produced no documents at all." @hoffmann6383
Hoffmann@hoffmann6383

Spoofing Case Update - $NWBO v. Citadel, et al Case No.: 1:22-cv-10185 Docket: courtlistener.com/docket/6657959… Today we saw a letter filing by $NWBO asking for all the case management deadlines to be extended by 120 days. $NWBO's counsel blames the substitution of counsel, Les Goldman's passing, delay tactics by Defendants, among other things. I've attached an image of $NWBO's proposed deadlines. The Defendants do not consent to the extension of deadlines. Some interesting points in today's letter: ➡️Current Document Production "NWBio has so far produced 3,056 documents. Defendants have produced far less. Defendant G1 Execution Services LLC has only produced 10 documents, Defendant Virtu Americas LLC produced 26 documents, and Defendant Citadel Securities LLC produced 132 documents. The other Defendants—Canaccord Genuity LLC, GTS Securities LLC, Instinet LLC, and Lime Trading Corp.—have produced no documents at all." ➡️Nonparty Subpoenas "There have also been delays in receiving productions from nonparties. For example, in June 2025, NWBio served subpoenas to Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”)—both of which are critical sources of relevant information concerning the trades at issue. Following NWBio’s persistent inquiries, DTCC only recently produced documents and FINRA is still gathering documents for future production, with partial production anticipated by mid-January and an uncertain timeline to complete production of archived data. Based on information gleaned from DTCC’s production, NWBio served additional follow-up requests to Defendants, for which responses are due today. Moreover, in October 2025, NWBio served a subpoena to nonparty OTC Link LLC, the scope of production for which is still being negotiated. All of the foregoing documents are critical to NWBio’s prosecution of this case."

English
2
32
123
6.3K