London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Dash...I do not think INDV are expecting them to roll over..
but to justify their claims with factual evidence.....which
seems to be lacking! We need to fight the dismissal
processs vigorously..it could flush out the fact that
there is no case against us. If we are not successful
then I agree a settlement makes commercial sense...
Agreed. The filing issued yesterday in reply to Indivior’s motion is no surprise to anybody whatsoever (surely?). It is standard process within litigation. Why would the Prosecution suddenly roll over and agree with the Defendant’s Motion? Ultimately it is up to the judiciary to decide, but either way, this stock is stuck until some resolution is made and I doubt in the next few weeks the Judge will find in INDV’s favour, and they should therefore just look to settle and move on.
The market is clearly bent on taking the sp to new lows...
Oh well... what goes down must come up.
All this nonsense has been priced in so why the MMs keep messing around with it is just games as usual.
looking very shaky here ,still holding large amount ,hoping I get my target of over 70p
Thanks Johnny for posting this info......as dodgepot stated the sparring will continue.
GLA
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14903922/227/united-states-v-indivior-inc/
Eviking's post is an extract of the Notice from October. The DoJ repsonse dosen't make quite so good reading.
Seems..
Seemd like the evidence against INDV has
been Trumped Up !!! LOL!
reinforced even...
GLA!
I agree Joe....it seems that much of the case is not being backed
up by facts/evidence that would reasonably be forthcoming
at this point in the legal process....surely if they had
the proof their case is reinfoced by declaring the facts!
Meant to also add....Thanks Eviking for posting the new filing.
GLA
This could all be heading towards an early settlement.....hopefully in Indiviors favour. Perhaps wishful thinking on my behalf. I honestly believe the DOJ simply cannot produce the LEGAL evidence they claim to have against Indivior.
GLA
Nothing really to read into it that helps us that much, it’s just the usual few rounds of sparring before the big fight..
Thanks eviking!
Any thoughts guys?
Looks like they are failing/unable to support their case against us....IMHO!
Motion for Bill of Particulars Indivior further objects to Magistrate Judge Sargent’s Order insofar as it includes a
wholesale denial of its Motion for Bill of Particulars without addressing many of the key
particulars lacking in the Indictment that courts routinely order the government to provide to
allow defendants to effectively prepare for trial. Magistrate Judge Sargent’s statement that all of
Indivior’s specific requests that were not addressed in the Order “amount to nothing more than
an effort to be provided with the Government’s evidence in advance of trial,” Order at 6, is
simply inaccurate. And the failure to consider Indivior’s need for this specific information to
prepare for trial and prevent undue surprise is clearly erroneous. As it stands, the Order will
require Indivior to “waste precious pre-trial preparation time guessing” about the nature of the
government’s charges even though the government knows precisely the nature of the charges it is
asserting and “can easily provide the information.” United States v. Trie, 21 F. Supp. 2d 7, 21
(D.D.C. 1998).
For example, both the court and the government failed even to address Indivior’s request
that the government disclose the identity of Indivior’s purported co-conspirators. Although the
Indictment alleges that between 2006 and 2019, Indivior conspired with “others known and
unknown to the Grand Jury” to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and health care fraud, the
Indictment does not identify a single co-conspirator. Indictment at p. 36-37. As Indivior
explained in its briefs supporting its Motion for Bill of Particulars, courts have routinely ordered
bills of particulars requiring the government to disclose the names of co-conspirators. See, e.g.,
United States v. Am. Waste Fibers Co., 809 F.2d 1044, 1047 (4th Cir. 1987) (proper remedy for
indictment that omits names of co-conspirators is to seek a bill of particulars); United States v.
Coleman, No. 3:17-CR-00008, 2018 WL 1386265, at *5 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2018) (directing the
government to disclose in a bill of particulars “the names of the co-conspirators the Government
foxy I can open it.
No accesss though
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14903922/united-states-v-indivior-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc