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.
Proposal No. 3 - Amendment to our certificate of incorporation to increase the authorized number of shares of common stock. The shares of common stock voted “for” the amendment to our certificate of incorporation, as amended, must equal or exceed a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon. Abstentions and broker non-votes are counted as votes “against” this proposal.
The fact of the matter is that at the Annual Meeting, #3 might be a clear NO.
Regardless of Little Legal Regulations that I find non important at the moment... Adjourning the Annual Meeting will have the same effect than voting once more...
But again though I appreciate your reply, my point was why even making proposal #3 when it might be a clear NO?
Enough posting for today! Tomorrow I will take a few vacation days!
Good luck to everyone
If Broker NON votes are NO votes (or against) it will not be a matter of adjourning anything but of starting all over again...
But that was not my point, my point is with such an "against" starting position (40% statistically) why even making the proposal? They should know retailers would also hate the proposal
But having read what the position of a major Broker is... doesn't that make you change your mind? Or yo still think they are lying?
For me that is BTW the most logical attitude of any Broker, not to do any thing... and I dont know what happened last year, but the rules for this year are christal clear
So coming back to my original question... With 40% of NO votes to begin with howcome the BoD made such a proposal?
I know that many here think the BoD is stupid? But I dont think they are that stupid
IFU thanks for your reply... but I dont agree with you yet.
I dont know how they treated ROUTINE votes last year. But this year they say rather the opposite
From the Proxy:
Proposal No. 3 - Amendment to our certificate of incorporation to increase the authorized number of shares of common stock. The shares of common stock voted “for” the amendment to our certificate of incorporation, as amended, must equal or exceed a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon. Abstentions and broker non-votes are counted as votes “against” this proposal.
If as you say... if I dont vote my vote will be considered as Broker NON vote... my vote then will be against the proposal. Right?
What am I missing?
Sorry IFU but that is NOT the way I understand my Broker's reply...
I dont know what is that you have read in the past that makes you be so certain, but even though English is not my first language it is very clear to me that they say they will NOT vote... and IB is one of the majors.
And I insist, I specified VERY clearly it was a ROUTINE vote... I really do not understand how you can be so positive once you read their reply. Should I believe you or should I believe in what they stated?
You mean they are lying? What would they be gaining? Why would they ever be wasting their time to vote? When would they be voting considering they would have to wait to make sure I am not going to vote?
Just received this reply from my broker to my enquiry about how they would proceed about the Broker NON votes (I very clearly specified that it was a ROUTINE vote)
Dear Mr. ,
Interactive Brokers does not vote proxies on behalf of clients. Therefore, what ever the terms are for non-voted shares will be processed by the Issuer.
As a convenience, a control number has been requested, and will be posted to this ticket with instructions how to review the materials and voting online.
Deadline information will be provided for online voting as well.
Regards,
If I understand this correctly, Brokers (at least this major one) would do nothing about Brokers NON vote.
So, we go back to square one. If the BoD has (statiscally speaking) more than 40% of NO votes to start with ... How are they planning to get #3 approved? Or are they as stupid as some on this Board claim proposing an impossible item?
I dont think they are that stupid, I just think there has to be a plan we just dont know about
RRdog, thanks for your well reasoned post... Shareholders deserve fair explanations from the BoD
Sorry CP, that was not my intention...
What I mean is that the same way (trace) left when the broker bought the shares would happen now... or not even that
If the situation (brokers voting whatever) is so loose I wouldnt be surprise if the phone call would be enough... Why should there be any trace?
The Broker is allowed to vote whatever or not to vote, right? Then why should there be such an official formality that may harm his PRECIOUS client and that the client does NOT want... if the Broker can vote YES cause he feels like or as part of a routine.
Anyway, would there be anyone asking the Broker why he vote whatever?
No way, the Broker is entitled to act at his own will (or at least that is what some people stated here)
AIMHO
CP, we are not talking of John Dow calling the broker (another Joe Blow agent)... We are talking (in theory) of a very powerful Entity that may have quite a few million $ in stocks with that broker ...
Now, are you going to tell me that the Broker is NOT going to pay attention to his request?
I believe he will, INMEDIATELY and without making any note in any paper (no need to)...
Wouldnt you if you were the Broker?... and very likely he talked to the Super Boss of the Broker Office
Regarding how the supposed Entity would sell the stock? I see no problem in doing it the same there was no problem buying it
I dont know why brokers would even bother to vote. I wouldnt waste my time unless forced by law (which is not the case)
JB, thanks for your enlightening post you sent a few days ago... It should be a sticky
Best
What you call "the fraud" may be a positive thing for shareholders... What do we know?
And the supposed fraud was made by whoever owns the majority of the historical 100 million brokers non-vote. The BoD may be just trying to take advantage of that situation that they didnt create
And about the negativity I suppose that comes with your task of posting.
In front of very good news, what is the point of the negative spin?
BTW, is this the morning shift? LOL
Ex, I respect your opinion, but there is something that does not click
If there is no "deal" or any sort of talks with big fishes belonging to the 100 Million brokers non-vote, would you care to explain how is #3 going to pass?
Leave it as it is ... and you start with more than 40% of NO votes
Why would any shareholder want to block #3? If, as it seems, there is already a deal behind it with another entity (otherwise please explain how #3 is going to pass)...
Why a current shareholder shouldn't want that?... does he/she care about making money or about screwing the BoD?
Any reason to think that the supposed deal is NO good for us retailers?
CP, if that 3rd option was what they had in mind, then I would whole heartedly join the bandwagon of those who claim that the BoardOfD is the most incompetent, stupid, etc etc of the planet
1. To propose something they knew from the start it would never happen
2. To tell the whole world... Hey! We are about to be broke, so anybody please make a BS bid for the company that we will have no other option than being bought out on the cheap
North, thanks for your post, yet I dont see your #4
CP,in your well elaborated explanations, I think you have not covered a very important point that JB addressed in his post….
Why, for such an important issue, the BOD went the ROUTINE way instead of going the NON-ROUTINE one?
It does not seem to be the logical path… Going “ROUTINE” AND then being forced to make the broker non-vote as a “YES” vote… Isn’t it too risky? As you said they have to be positive that they are going to become “YES” votes. That means that some sort of contact has had to take place with “whoever” and maybe that proves that an Entity exists , otherwise a whole bunch of retailers would have been very difficult to contact with and therefore very difficult to ensure YES votes.
It would have been too risky of a choice
My point being… maybe that is a little proof that an “Entity” exists behind those broker non votes.
Again how is PPHM going to ensure the broker non-vote as a YES vote unless there is a limited (very limited) number of people to contact to
What you mention to be a proof of "No Family" I dont see it... Actually that is the very reason for going the ROUTINE pathway
But IDCC has an office around there (San Diego)... I know because while MWC this year I passed by IDCC's booth and talked to an engineer who said was working at their office in San Diego
Dont know if I understand your post properly... You are in a Hospital in Spain? Is that related to BAVI? The Vitoria nurse?...
I live in the Barcelona area... Maybe it would be helpful for communication if we use conventional email to share info... I do not have PM privileges here... feel free to email me: traderon74@yahoo.es
Semper, thanks for all your posts. A honest poster is a very valuable asset for this board. Wish we read again your posts very soon.
best of luck
<<InterDigital is thrilled to be a member of this exciting Innovate UK-supported project>>
Innovative Integrated Transport Smart City Initiative Awarded to Transport- and Wireless Industry-Led Consortium
AUGUST 17, 2015 --
LONDON, Aug. 17, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- An innovative smart city initiative focused on addressing the challenges in transportation systems with Internet of Things (IoT) technology has been awarded by the UKs innovation agency, Innovate UK to a consortium of leading European industry, academic and transport authority partners.
The project, oneTRANSPORT, is an integrated transport initiative targeted at transport authorities. Totaling approximately 3.5 million (with co-funding by the UKs innovation agency, Innovate UK provided as a result of a successful competition bid), the collaborative research and development initiative will span two years and lay the basis for smarter transport networks in the UK, as well as setting an example of the kind for transportation networks worldwide.
The oneTRANSPORT two-year commercially-focused project was proposed by a consortium that consists of eleven partners comprising Arup, Buckinghamshire County Council, Clearview Traffic Group, Hertfordshire County Council, Highways England, Imperial College London, Northamptonshire County Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Traak Systems, Worldsensing and InterDigital Europe.
The project aims to enable multimodal transport information to be published by data owners (e.g. transport authorities and new third parties) and accessed nationally by transport authorities, application developers and others. The goal of oneTRANSPORT is to deliver a superior travel experience as well as fueling the exploration of new revenues for local authorities, in-journey travel optimization and added value services that travelers desire and ultimately improve the travel experience on a truly nationwide basis.
oneTRANSPORT is a future-proof strategy that can be leveraged to position the transport industry in a strong position rolling into the Internet of Things future, said Alan Carlton, Vice President, InterDigital Europe. InterDigital is thrilled to be a member of this exciting Innovate UK-supported project and looks forward to bringing our IoT expertise to this collaborative initiative.
This is an exciting time to be bringing forward innovation and developing enhanced services for the transport sector, said Tim Gammons, global Intelligent Transport Systems leader at Arup. Whilst there is still much that can be done to improve transport connectivity, oneTRANSPORT will enable an important step-change in how data is shared and used by travelers and transport operators. We are delighted to be involved in this project which challenges conventional data use in a growing digital age.
Buckinghamshire County Council and its partnering local authorities see oneTRANSPORT as a key enabler in helping to address many of their transport challenges in the near future, specifically around encouraging inter-modal shifting and easing congestion across the network. By opening up local authority transport data through oneTRANSPORT, there is an opportunity to help residents get from A to B more effectively, as the oneTRANSPORT platform will enable the development of more effective transport apps and web experiences, said David Trousdale, External Funding Projects Lead Officer, Buckinghamshire County Council.
oneTRANSPORT offers a unique opportunity for researchers to accelerate and extend the application and impact of their work in practice, said Professor John Polak, Director of the Urban Systems Laboratory, Imperial College London. Imperial is delighted to be part of this highly innovative project, which brings together the worlds of transport and IoT, and we look forward to contributing to its success.
About InterDigital
InterDigital develops technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industrys most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world's leading wireless companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ and is included in the S&P MidCap 400 index.
Inte
http://www.itbusinessnet.com/article/Innovative-Integrated-Transport-Smart-City-Initiative-Awarded-to-Transport--and-Wireless-Industry-Led-Consortium-4025818
Funworker, I did contact a couple of Hospitals and confirmed that Sunrise was on and recruiting. However, it is difficult to get any further and more specific and detailed info on the phone, because for that you would need to speak with the Hospital Oncology Specialist responsible for the trial.
In Spain all Hospitals involved in Sunrise are linked to the Social Security of the country and only those patients assigned (by their residence location) to a Hospital can be treated there.
Anyway I admit I may lack imagination to deal with this “enterprise”. If you have in mind some strategy in order to gather more info I am all ears.
Best of luck
Ja, Funworker, ich lebe in Spanien, but that is all my German...
Can't see anything
Paul, I guess we both agree that this is all pure speculation... Simulations and models just try to follow reality but obviously they are not reality. Anyway my exercise just shows that the same way some people are positive that 1st lookin has happened some others (also from pure speculation) "think" reasonably otherwise.
Best is knowing not "thinking"... But
On the other hand I am not so sure about what you mentioned:
" when each site came on line, they already had at least one patient."
Paul as I said in my post, I took the enrollment model from Golfho, because it made sense. I assume he took the starting enrollment dates from Hospitals from factual data and from then onwards he applied the criteria of 1 patient after 4 months the Hospital started SUNRISE and another patient 4 months after the first one.
The fact is that this scenario seems to fit with what PPHM is saying is happening.
The chart below shows the "hockey stick" type of enrolment Joe Shan talked about. Also the "events" curve corresponde to "good" perfomance from both BAVI & Placebo arms.
The Excel itself was / is fantastic (I mean Golfho's). Great work... However different approaches and different starting hypothesis may lead to different conclusions.
I dont claim to be right, I just say that if the hypothesis I base my approach are reasonably accurate then 1st lookin will not take place during the summer.
I believe that 1st lookin has NOT taken place yet… I have done another simulation that estimates possible dates for the lookins and they seem to be quite later than many here have expected. Actually 1st lookin will not happen until October 2015 (if both Arms BAVI and Placebo perform poorly) and Decer 2015 if BAVI and Placebo Arm perform really well (according to past records)
My approach goes as follows… I have used the excellent spreadsheet that Golfho prepared and in particular one of his 4 Scenarios that assumes that a patient is enrolled 4 months after site opening and 4 months between enrollments
ENROLLMENT
These results gave 595 patients enrolled by November 2015 and that fits very well with the comments from PPHM: “Enrollment is going according to plan (end of 2015)”
So I took this numbers for this new approach.
Also any patient should belong to any of 8 groups according to the time they event : 3 , 5 , 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 months or they are survivors. Patients will be grouped by the months they are still alive after enrollment.
Let’s also consider 9 Cases (Scenarios) depending how good/bad the Bavi & Placebo Arm work. The percentage of “eventings” for each group tries to have a Median OS of 7,9 or 11 for the Placebo Arm and a MOS of 10,11 or 13 for the BAVI Arm
EVENTING GROUPS AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS & PERCENTAGES OF OCURRENCE
So again any patient should belong to any of these 8 groups (according to the time they event : 3, 5, 7 months etc.) and Patients will only start “eventing” after at least 3 months after they have been enrolled. The calculations of “events” will be done according to the forementioned percentages. Do not mistake Enrollment Groups with Eventing Groups.
Calculations were made and These are the results per Case of number of Patients who had “evented” at the beginning of each month in 2015
RESULTS PER CASE (SCENARIO)
So not until next October 2015 we find 169 events… and that corresponds to a bad performance of both the Bavi and the Placebo Arms.
For a GOOD Bavi (and Placebo Arm) performance (Case 1) we would have to wait until December 2015 for 1st lookin
If you have read this far you deserve some more detailed explanation on how the calculations were made.
Let’s find out how many events took place beginning of this month (July 2015) and for Case 1. We should start by looking from 3 months behind (April 2015) backwards till 15 months behind (April 2014) to come to the following distribution of patients according to the time of enrollment:
These numbers can be checked, for instance in April 2015 (3 months before July) the total number of enrollments is 308 (see at the top), etc.
So we start with the group that has been enrolled more than 15 months: 1 person.
Survivors: 1 x 0.04 = 0.04 (not considered) Group of Eventing in 15 months = 1 x 0.05 = 0.05 (not considered)
“Total to exclude” = 0 + 0 = 0
We follow to the next Enrolled Group: 13 months =< enrolled <15 months. Number 9 – “Total to exclude” = 9
Group of Eventing in 13 months = 9 x 0.18 = 1.62 (we consider 1)
“Total to exclude” from this group and prior = 0 + 1 = 1
We follow to the next Enrolled Group: 11 months =<enrolled<13 months. Number 14 – “Total to exclude”=14–1=13
Group of Eventing in 11 months = 14 x 0.23 = 3.22 (we consider 3)
“Total to exclude” from this group and prior = 0 + 1 + 3= 4
We follow to the next Enrolled Group: 9months =<enrolled<11months. Number 77 – “Total to exclude”=77–4=73
Group of Eventing in 9 months = 73 x 0.23 = 16.7 (we consider 16)
“Total to exclude” from this group and prior = 0 + 1 + 3 +16 = 20
And so on and so forth… until we come to the number of 70 events by July 1st
CONCLUSIONS
If the enrollment model is relatively accurate (which I think it is) we can conclude from the results of this approach that even with a bad performance for the Bavi or Placebo trials the 1st lookin does not seem to happen before October 2015. From October 2015 onwards seem to be reasonable time frames for the 1st lookin to happen. However 1st lookin and 2nd lookin are very close to each other.
I will be happy to listen to any arguments against this approach. Unfortunately I have had no one checking the hypothesis I have taken nor my calculations, so I admit errors are possible… Yet the results say we will still have to wait a while until the lookins take place. No problem for me.
If anyone is interested in this spreadshit and wants to play around with different strategies please send me an email (my email is traderon74@yahoo.es). The spreadshit is based on an impeccable Excel that Golfho made.
thanks so much
it works
I would like to post a MS Word paragraph that includes some images...
I paste it but the images do not stay
I tried "image" and paste in there and does not work either.
anyone can help?
thanks in advance
Correct Bio, this is the transcription....
(Joe Shan)<<To protect the integrity of this double-blind trial, an independent data monitoring committee has been established to evaluate safety data on an ongoing basis and make recommendations to Peregrine as to when the trial should be unblinded. As the interim analyses are triggered after pre-specified numbers of trial events are reached, in this case, deaths, we cannot, at this point, guide to when these might be reached, but we will be sure to provide updates as soon as we can.
Then why did Joe Shan use the future tense? Why missinforming?
<<The first interim analysis, which will be conducted when 33% of the targeted overall survival events are reached, is for futility and the second interim analysis for futility or predictive success, will be conducted at 50% of events>>
Great CC though
Everything went as expected... you dont go to a lion, open its mouth, put your arm inside... and expect that nothing is going to happen LOL
" Bavi is a placebo" , "will never make it to PIII" "PIII will never recruit enough patients" "PPHM cherry picked all the data" etc... speaks volumes... Enough to have a clear picture of what is goin on.
At least for me.
Chris I respect you a great deal and I love your articles (thank you for them). Yet I do not understand your special interest in someone's opinion... unless that someone is a real pro in the field which may not be the case for most of us here on this message board...
My point being: Is it worthwhile asking for someone's opinion when that opinion may go in whichever direction including against yours... Not pointing my finger to anyone in particular, but many people here (of course not all) are driven by their own agendas or just by their own moods...
What will really make a difference are facts: either as a partnership or as trial results. Period.
AIMHO
by the way, what degree of expertice would show a shameless and not taken back statement such as "Bavi is a placebo"
Agree... I also liked BM's presentation... In regard to the only 2 questions I am not sure that was not intended indeed by the Co.
It is very convenient for them not to have any uncomfortable question or complaint from unexpected shareholders
Bio, maybe he is not liying. Maybe BMY is not openly involved in that collaboration but that does not mean they are not interested in the results (which obviously they are). Maybe they feel comfortable enoughh to have MSK doing it for them.
For whatever reason they want to keep a distace. That is fine with me.
Scruffy, I see a big difference with RMBS... IDCC climbs and climbs...
Legal System may also be against the lsmall fich but pps does not seem to care