Insofar as defendant’s cross-complaint was based on plaintiff’s press releases about a treatment it was developing for opioid overdose, the claims fell within the CCP 425.17(c) exemption from the Anti-SLAPP statute.  Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the fact that over recent years it obtained and spent most of its money on research and development did not show that it was not “primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services.”  The purpose of the research and development was to develop medicines and treatments that plaintiff could sell or use in providing a treatment service to addicts.  The press releases made statements of fact about plaintiff’s business and its relationship to defendant and its experimental drug.  The press releases were made to promote sale of plaintiff’s stock to investors, thus meeting the final two requirements of the 425.17(c) exemption.