kristen shaughnessy

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.

$NWBO A Braelyn Update Braelyn recently celebrated her 19th birthday and is currently in the UK for a glioblastoma treatment developed by Northwest Biotherapeutics, an American company. “As a mom I have to ask, if Congress has already heard from survivors and researchers, what more needs to happen before innovative treatments like this get the attention and the urgency they deserve because families like mine don’t have time to wait….” Amanda Hollensbe @HollensbeAmanda Video #6 @gr197667 @andrewcaravello @LisainNJUSA @RobertKennedyJr @ThomasOwenMcCa1 @MHRAgovuk