InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 30
Posts 5248
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/16/2012

Re: asmarterwookie post# 212996

Thursday, 03/26/2015 8:59:13 PM

Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:59:13 PM

Post# of 346364
Wook, I am just trying to point out how ridiculous this notion of IR withholding the release of information because of a CA is. Of the two examples you posted, which would be considered fluff? Neither in my opinion. The betabodies shows a continuous pipeline and the awards given to Avid show the qualifications of the manufacturing business. Neither are fluff.

Volgoat has confidently said no partnership until CA is done. If this is true it means the lawyers are not confident in the case against the plaintiffs or there is something indemnifying management. I know with certainty CK told me they are not withholding anything because of the lawsuits. I have in writing the exact quote. So I do not believe it to be the case. If CK told you differently, well, that's an issue.

Either way, the bottom line is partnerships to fruition were stated by King. We all know there are two catalysts that will move PPHM. The most imminent is partnership. Coming year is what is being argued. There are longs who want King to hold his word and there are longs who think the coming year has not yet been actualized.

Lawyers should be able to argue the different chapters of the book:

Phase II completion with good data
Partnership with Abbvie nearly inked
Sabotage discovered
Abbvie backed out
Peregrine saves data
FDA okays moving to PIII and grants fast track
Peregrine moves into PIII
Partnership with XXX

The CA has no merit.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CDMO News