Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I suggest that the most appropriate terminology would have been that the options were granted to her and as such she received them.
The words "acquisition" and "disposition" are used by the OSC (SEDAR) to indicate that an individual has 'bought' or 'sold' common shares, preferred shares, debentures, or whatever.
Therefore, like BR, I first concluded from the original statement that the new Director was so excited at receiving her new Directorship that she rushed out and bought a big bag of shares on the open market.
Keep up the good work, BR!!!!
PG is missing because the event is not at the top of his priority list (i.e. flogging stock to investors). What is at the top of his list, you may ask? Pumping up scripts, booking sales and reacting to BO offers.
On another matter, ans. to Merc1 (I believe) - EGLX - phenomenal development & growth over the last year; and I hope, more to come.
To those concerned with the terrible SP action of AUPH since VOS was approved by the FDA - Here is an interesting comment by Boston BI provided after an SA article on KPTI. It references AUPH specifically.
Boston Biotech Investor
13 Mar. 2021, 6:15 PM
@Delmar Price I hear you and appreciate the perspective. However we've formally studied all small cap biotechs (with market caps of less than $3Billion) that had their first product approved by the FDA since 1/1/2017. Since 1/1/2020, only 13% of companies (i.e. DCPH, YMAB, BCRX) saw higher share prices 45 days after FDA approval. 87% fell and some rather dramatically (we excluded those approved in 2/2020 from our study...before the COVID panic in 3/2020). Hence unfortunately AUPH's trading pattern is consistent with others getting first approval the last 14 months.
The other material difference to consider is Lupkynis (voclosporin) from AUPH should become the standard of care for Lupus Nephritis relatively quickly. SLE is an awful disease that generally affects women (who we suspect will research current treatment options more aggressively than men). With KPTI's Xpovio, there are multiple multiple competing therapies in the Multiple Myeloma & DLBCL spaces. Though AUPH management is unproven, Lupkynis uptake should be a lay up.
Dogger - I gave my opinion as an investor.
I would be more concerned if the report misrepresented the capabilities of VOS. Just based on what would be an acceptable price for each drug, the writers appear to be saying that VOS is twice as good as Benalysta. Am I wrong on that assumption?
Like I said - AUPH sales staff will set the doctors straight on the benefits of VOS versus the other drug. Therefore, I have no concern.
Thanks to you and somerssault for bringing this issue to light.
Who did you think was paying the bills of ICER? The opinions help to give guidance to the insurance industry.
The differences in the descriptions are nuances. There is no need to destroy a product in your description in order to show the differences. The most important comparison to me was based on price. A much higher price for VOS was justified without denigrating the competitor.
IMHO, the rubber hits the road between a highly competent sales force and the prescribers. Any problems in the ICER report will be dealt with by the sales force and backup purveyors of educational information that AUPH has employed.
I only skimmed the salient points of the report as offered in the messages on this blog; but nevertheless, see nothing to be overly concerned about.
I don't have a lot of BCRX but sold half on Monday at $11.50.
moosedogger - The power of your analyses lies in your second-last sentence. The trajectory of the launch over one full quarter of sales will be very important in the premium paid for the company. It will show the degree of acceptance of the product by the LN community, their nephrologists and the medical insurance providers.
Furthermore, consider the number of companies that have failed to bring an LN product to market. I strongly believe that many of them will be very interested in this product.
The buyer will not only be getting a breakthrough, SOC product; also included in the package will be a first-class marketing and sales team.
I would agree with you that the current SP (perhaps influenced by IJUN) does not lend itself to some big speculative premium. However, a successful sale of the company will be based on good execution and the current conditions in the M&A market for a large, unmet, medical need. It has taken many years to get to this point. AUP has been very methodical and it is not about to blow it in the 11th hour. We will get full price for the company.
It's hard to tell what their price target is based on without seeing their research report. I would expect that it reflects the next known catalyst, which will most likely be robust sales numbers.
We have to let the crackerjack sales team go to work. A real kicker would be if any of the sales are for off-label purposes. That would add real sizzle to the steak.
Richard Glickman's Holdings of Aurinia from Sedi.ca – the link below may or may not work.
This is the best that I can surmise.
https://www.sedi.ca/sedi/SVTItdSelectInsider?locale=en_CA
After accessing Sedi link go to access public filings and follow the prompts, etc.
From Sedi he owns:
1,017,508 warrants
1,021,206 common shares
1,670,000 options with an exercise price of $6.42 Cdn.
And I think you will agree that he is ( and was) worth every penny of the options/warrants or any of the common shares which may have been converted from options which were about to expire.
If the FDA turns down approval for VOC, they better be ready to deal with the Lupus community. But maybe that is why they granted approval for Benlystra. lol.
Did you know that BENLYSTA was studied in the largest and longest lupus nephritis clinical trial ever conducted - i.e. 2 years. LOL.
To read about dosing and administration, etc see: https://www.benlysta.com/about-benlysta-for-lupus/lupus-nephritis/
Thinking more logically about AUPH, I suggest that when the FDA did not require an AdCom meeting and granted priority review for VOC; it sort of tipped their hand regarding approval. The only item still in doubt is the label. ……. Meanwhile, I have been buying on weakness. ……. Good luck to all.
P.S. - I wonder when Benlysta's patent(s) run out???
" ... digital event ... " ???
b.r. - perhaps you meant a 'binary event'. In other words, a 'yes or no' event with an 'all-or-nothing' result.
By the way, I think the bet with the sale of 'puts' is a good one.
Good giggle researcher!
The 20 point difference was approximately a double. Nevertheless, any researcher worth their salt would key on statistical differences and in this case, the statistical differences were off the chart.
I suggest that the only issue in doubt is a label that incorporates the dosing regime.
This stock will likely need plenty of patience since negotiations will be behind the scenes and it is no use suing Moderna until they have pocketed some money from vaccine sales.
zzaatt, regarding your statement << The company can't sit on its butt, waiting to be acquired. >> ; it was interesting that the CEO stated in the last CC that "good companies are not sold, they are bought ...". I suggest that the company will continue executing to the best of its' ability and let the chips fall where they may.
I won't be surprised if Otsuka buys them 'lock, stock and barrel' once the NDA is obtained.
Re Antibiotic stocks - I must agree. They are a noble cause but get no respect as far as good investments.
< $5 - just missed BCRX by about two weeks. However, if Gali is a bust it could round trip for a short period of time.
What did you just say???????
..... yes, and hopefully, they and we will cash in.
The inducement grants, of which you referenced, involve Stephen Robertson.
I checked out his credentials on the company website and here is a partial description:
<< Stephen focuses on advising clients on securities, corporate and commercial legal matters, including extensive experience with mergers and acquisitions, commercial agreements and corporate governance matters. >> (bolding added by me)
I have waited too long to cash out portions of my holdings in 1/3 allotments as suggested in a recent post on this site, even though I am very eager to top up my holdings in TRIL.
A Gilead buy out would be a real long shot considering they bought out a company with a similar therapeutic earlier this year.
https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/3/gilead-to-acquire-forty-seven-for-49-billion
P.S. Why would $2.5bn be an appropriate value for TRIL when GILD paid $4.9bn for 47?
FYI BR - AUPH’s cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaled approximately $442.06 million at July 31, 2020
NOT $264M. They need lots of cash for commercialization.
I suggest that the government has encouraged as many public companies as possible to develop products to fight COVID using their own funding; and in doing so, is careful not to immediately “cut them off at the pass” with a government-funded therapeutic. In effect, the public companies have been given a head start, a chance to recoup investment costs and to make a profit. Whereupon, the BCRX therapeutic (which has been NIAID funded) can then be unveiled and hopefully become a worthy competitor.
My source shows Picchio granted options on 50,000 shares – filing date Sept 25/20.
Let's try to keep it real.
Yup! Your scenario is possible; although usually, they only hedge a portion of production, and only for a limited period of time.
The bigger problem currently appears to be that some operations could close down for periods of time because of COVID-19.
It doesn't really matter whether the mining companies hedge gold or not because Sandstorm is paid in physical gold. All that matters with the miners is that they continue to mine product at planned rates of production and don't go bankrupt.
Stock Price was up as high as 24% in after hours trading on NASDAQ, April 9th, 2020. More good things to come.
A few more people now starting to take notice.
Friday, March 20th - up 25% (NASDAQ) on 1,140,780 shares traded. Volume also higher on TSX.
Stay tuned!
It was a good call. I am contemplating of how and when to add to my share count. At the moment, I have a very modest number of shares. There was one item on the call that gave me pause; and it is the strength of the IP such that protection is afforded out to 2037. Until the FDA certifies the companies’ drug administration protocol by incorporating it into the label and/or instructions, I just can’t go all in. As Peter Greenleaf stated (i.e. as copied from the transcript) regarding the dosing protocol, “So it is our hope that it’ll be in the indications and usage of the package insert and that physicians will to ensure this dosing – this customized dosing protocol for patients optimizes the effect of the drug that they’re getting, that it will be broadly adopted.”
Just in case you are still wondering - GILD bought FTSV for $4.9B in order to attain their CD47 Program. As you know TRIL has a similar program so the GILD deal puts the potential value of TRIL in better perspective - i.e. much higher than the current stock price.
Interesting.
On the other hand, I have seen such an event relating to the Cdn market at least 3 times in the last year for various securities in which there is unusual activity. I suggest that TRIL with a price increase of at least 46% on the Cdn market depending on the time of day; and with the price changes occurring on heavy volume (5+ the average daily volume at the end of the day) would constitute unusual activity.
The companies usually limit their comments to the facts as they know them and refrain from commenting on any rumors.
Good catch, ScifiSailor. Immediately after I read the allegation that the timeline had slipped, I checked the latest investor presentation (Feb 2020). Why? – because it is imperative that AUPH maintain its’ timelines. As I recall, one of the big pharmas, such as AZ, is fast on their heels with a credible, competing LN treatment. Sorry for the fuzziness on the competitor, but I follow a number biotechs, etc. so details sometimes become sketchy.
Nevertheless, the Feb IP stated at least twice:
“ 1H2020 NDA submission
2H2020 NDA filing accepted for review ”
Cost saver - yes; but more importantly, a significant time saver. Time to market for some indications can mean a big difference by providing a leg up on competitors.
biocqr - thx for the info, however....
the NR states that - "Under the terms of the agreement, Trillium has granted NeuCyte exclusive, worldwide rights to develop and commercialize the compound." Therefore, it appears that it was not TRIL that in-licensed the product; but rather, the other way around.
Thank goodness, since I don't want to see TRIL spread themselves to thin.
Cool - Your post was a most interesting analyses of the situation.
I thought your scenario 2 was a particular good piece of stickhandling, although I think scenario 3 is a more likely reason for the delay.
Keep up the Good Work!!!
Yes BR, I agree.
Just unfortunate that there was no SP pop, which would have allowed Jefferies (or whoever) to float some AUPH shares at a higher SP. A cash cushion is always welcome.
Perhaps in the near future, Bausch will make an offer that will make us all very giddy. I'm hoping for a deal that AUPH can't refuse as the next significant catalyst.
I agree with all that you say.
Furthermore, if I heard correctly, Dr. Glickman stated that AUPH would be testing different dosages in order to improve tolerability while retaining efficacy.
They need to win on both the comfort and efficacy fronts in order for a chance to elevate the product to blockbuster status.
… But AUPH should have known that there would be a lot of people waiting in the weeds (i.e. the AGN faithful) for half a chance to trash the study results – and boy, did they ever (e.g. over on the ‘Biotech Value’ board). The article cited was written by Adam Feurestein, no less ….. (i.e. study was “a flop”).
Why try to jump a 4-foot hurdle when all that is needed is, one that is 3-foot high. One of the oldest adages in the books is – “Under promise and over deliver”. It is very frustrating because it blew the chance for Jefferies (or whoever) to float less AUPH stock at a higher SP.
Heavy Trading in ARRY Options
Jon Nagarian, a regular CNBC contributor, reported a big buy of call options for Array Biopharma stock during the CNBC TV show ‘Fast Money Halftime Report’ on Monday Feb 11, 2019. He reported that a big trader took profits on an earlier options purchase of ARRY and rolled up that profit and bought 5000 June 20 calls. That trader’s newest purchase took place on Feb 4, 2019, with ARRY stock trading at $17.85.
AUPH threw a Hail Mary for the Ph 2 DES trial, when it was not needed. That worries me, for Dr. Glickman has been spot on up until now.
I mentioned the situation (as best I could) to a friend who does contract work for various drug companies undertaking clinical trials. He said it was simple – the primary endpoint should have been to prove non-inferiority in tolerability relative to Restasis. After all, Restasis was already deemed by the FDA as an approved treatment for DES. Any result better than that would have provided a resounding victory when coupled with the efficacy findings. Furthermore, it would have kept naysayers, such as Adam Feuerstein and company, from characterizing the findings as “mixed results” or as a “flop”.
Ron – regarding AUPH’s recent DES results – I suggest that one go directly to the study results released by AUPH rather than rely on the loaded spin supplied by AF in STATNEWS; which appears to be endorsed by you. I wouldn’t call results demonstrating statistically greater efficacy “a flop”. Furthermore, I couldn’t find any difference in tolerability between treatments in the AUPH NR, as stated in the STATNEWS article.
https://ir.auriniapharma.com/press-releases/detail/131/aurinia-announces-voclosporin-ophthalmic-solution