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.
It's not up to IPIX/Leo whether the 2nd closing happens. Here's how it's spelled out in the agreement:
. . . and a second closing relating to the sale of 2,036 shares of preferred stock and accompanying warrants is expected to occur sixty trading days following the date of the first closing, subject to the trading price for the Company’s common stock being greater than $0.07 per share and the value of the daily trading volume for the Company’s common stock being greater than $50,000, in each case for each of the ten trading days prior to the second closing date, and subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions as set forth in the Securities Purchase Agreement.
FTD requests vs granted. There's a chart on the FDA website that shows the number of FTD requests vs granted: CDER Fast Track Designation Requests Received. Over the past couple years >60% of the requests have been granted. It's notable that a very small number of requests are made compared to the number of drugs in development.
CDER stands for Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
I can NOT trade IPIX premarket. I'm on eTrade.
Rdunn88, the numbers are a bit higher than 2,000,000. Here's a link to my post from late Dec:
IPIX share price and the challenge ahead. The VWAP price for the past 10 trading days is in line with what it was in late Dec.
I think the relevant takeaway from my Dec post is this:
To play out the math, their initial 3,053 shares of preferred stock would convert into 24,380,000 shares of common stock TODAY. . . . And they have 12,055 more shares of preferred stock to convert.
In my head, one of the challenges for IPIX is getting past the gatekeepers at the hospitals and research centers where a placebo controlled trial will take place. I expect that those gatekeepers are being bombarded by pharma/CROs with COVID therapies all looking for the same patients. The “Fast Track Designation” can help IPIX differentiate brilacidin and maybe they’ll get a closer look.
It's certainly good news and will help differentiate brilacidin from other therapies when recruiting patients for the clinical trial. That's my main takeaway.
Will be interesting to see what the market thinks.
I hope you're right about the dosing levels. The IC50 and IC90 were calculated based upon a pretreated inoculum (virus-brilacidin mix incubated for 1 hour) before being introduced to the cells. When they did not pretreat the inoculum the inhibition of the virus was not as strong. See underlined in below for example:
Brilacidin exhibits potent inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 in a human cell line (Calu-3 cells)
To ascertain that brilacidin can elicit anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in an ACE2 positive human lung cell, experiments were conducted in the Calu-3 infection model. The toxicity of brilacidin in this cell line was initially assessed at 10µM and 20µM concentrations by incubating the cells with the compound for 24 hours. The assay revealed that these concentrations of brilacidin were nontoxic to Calu-3 cells. The inhibitory effect of brilacidin in the Calu-3 cell line was first confirmed by pre-treatment (for 2 hours) and post-infection treatment (for 24 hours) of cells with brilacidin, which demonstrated a dose-dependent decrease of viral load, with the higher concentration of brilacidin providing 61% inhibition of infectious viral titer (Figure 3A). However, when the experiment was modified to include a brilacidin-treated inoculum – with direct pre-incubation of the virus with brilacidin for 1 hour prior to infection, and with infection carried out in the presence of the compound – the extent of inhibition dramatically increased, resulting in 95% and 97% reduction of infectious viral titer at the 10µM and 20µM concentration of the compound respectively (Figure 3B).
I have no insight beyond what IPIX provided in their most recent 10Q (I highlighted the bit that you were asking about):
ABSSSI — In February 2016, the Company submitted a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) request, along with a final protocol, to the FDA, for a Phase 3 clinical trial of Brilacidin for the treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection (ABSSSI) caused by gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We received from the FDA comments and considerations for incorporation into our study design. Management decided to delay its response to FDA due to the low price per share of our common stock and the many multiple million dollar costs associated with a Phase 3 program. Our strategy, for now, is to achieve success with other trials and attract partnering opportunities that may provide significant upfront payments and milestone payments, which can then be used to fund the ABSSSI program. We see ABSSSI as the appropriate gateway indication in infectious diseases, enabling potential further studies of Brilacidin’s use for implant coating and biofilm infections.
Just responding to the assertion that it was independent research. IPIX provided funding and two people associated with IPIX were authors. That's why the paper includes the "Funding" and "Conflicts of Interest" statement.
It wasn't totally independent. The preprint paper includes the following "Funding" and "Conflicts of Interest" statement:
Funding: George Mason University, with identified lead researcher Aarthi Narayanan, received financial support from Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc. to conduct research on brilacidin's antiviral properties. Conflicts of Interest: Warren Weston serves as a consultant for Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc. Jane A. Harness is an employee of Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Not sure if this helps answer your question, but the RBL preprint included information from the IPIX P2 ABSSSI study that listed median Cmax in plasma as 7.67µM from a single IV dose of 0.6 mg/kg.
Using some simple math and referring to the IC90 and IC50 from the RBL paper I came up with the following estimated doses:
IC90 was 2.63µM which suggests a dose of 0.205 mg/kg
IC50 was 0.565µM which suggests a dose of 0.04 mg/kg
If I read the materials and methods from the preprint correctly, in the testing at the RBL the cells were pretreated for 2 hours with brilacidin before virus infection and then incubated for another 24 hours with brilacidin before testing.
In a press release from 2014 CTIX indicated brilacidin had a half life of 13-16 hours (Cellceutix Prepares for Phase 2 Clinical Trial of Brilacidin-OM for Oral Mucositis). So to achieve the concentrations of the IC90 and IC50 and hold it there for the 24 hours to mimic what was done at the RBL one would have to provide a much higher dose (2X) or multiple doses closer to the target concentration.
To make matters a bit more complicated I don't know whether IPIX has done animal testing to determine the pharmacodynamics of brilacidin in lung tissues. That could be a wild card. Drug interactions could be another wild card.
The Dec 9th financing is going to add another 100 million shares or more if the current price doesn't hold. It's stunning.
I haven't been following mbs for this or any other stock. I don't remember how I came across iHub, but I did and I made my first post in June of this year.
I never thought much about brilacidin. I got into CTIX in 2010 for kevetrin and thought that was where the $ and energy should have gone. So I was a bit biased from the start.
CTIX/IPIX chose to invest heavily in brilacidin and the P2 results were presented as very positive. Yet nobody has put up any real money or offered anything but the most onerous financing to the company. It tells me something is fundamentally offsetting about brilacidin and IPIX.
As to COVID . . . I don’t think the RBL testing or SI can be relied upon as suggestive of clinical success. I think it was TIAB who made that point vociferously and repeatedly months ago. From my readings, Brilacidin has a half life of 13-16 hours which means either a single high dose must be given or multiple smaller doses to achieve the concentrations that were shown to be effective in the RBL testing. And either of these dosing schemes will have AEs imo. The dosing to achieve EC50 is probably realistic, but I’m not sure that would have a lasting clinical effect. I'm not a doctor. When IPIX posts the trial details we'll all be able to see what they have in mind.
As a trade, I think IPIX is interesting and I’m holding what I have left. If IPIX is able to post a positive PR that gets the attention of the trader folks, the stock could pop (2X, 3X?). Unfortunately, at the same time the Dec 9 financing folks will saturate the market and the stock will retreat.
That's my take.
Look back to 2015 for a potential explanation as to why there's been so little interest in brilacidin from big pharma, or any pharma. Brilacidin – QIDP Drug At a Critical Juncture (July 10, 2015). The author covers the good points and the hazards of the drug.
Read the full article to understand the thinking of this person and whether they are credible. If you don't have time for that, the 3 paragraphs below contain the most important hazard material imo.
More important and of concern is the fact that numbness and tingling are still extremely frequent AEs (58-74%) in the Phase 2b trial despite the dose reduction. The syndrome has been described as “paresthesias, usually beginning in the oral area, and often with subsequent extension to one or more of the following areas: face, scalp, extremities, upper thorax, and/or perineum (groin and buttocks)”; the company refers to it as an ‘ion channel effect’ of short duration and reversible. [3]
In the context of the blood pressure changes observed in Phases 1 and 2, this ‘ion channel effect’ may be anything but trivial. Electrophysiologic studies on human cell lines published in abstract form found that even low concentrations of brilacidin (1µM) block ion channels to a significant degree: 43.2% (ASIC1a), 56.3% (hNav1.7) and 45.8% (hKv1.6).[4] In case you are interested, ASIC1a stands for acid-sensing ion channel, and hNav1.7 and hKv1.for the sodium and the potassium channel, respectively.
This Kv1.6 channel is expressed not only in neurons, but also in cardiac and other muscle tissue where it affects membrane potential and cellular response to stimuli [5]. While ion-channel blockers are an area of considerable interest for drug therapy, we are not convinced such off-target effects are desirable for an antibiotic. Even if it is a QIDP drug.
Here’s a different take . . . I’m in this stock to make money. Making money has EVERYTHING to do with the company producing results (yes, we’re in a race). When I see other companies producing results it makes IPIX look bad. That hurts the stock price. If IPIX had good news they would present it to the world. There’s no cloak and dagger stuff going on. It’s pretty simple.
Btw, who is IPIX’s largest investor?
U.K. finds Japanese arthritis drug is effective for COVID-19 treatment
In clinical trials funded by the government, the risk of death dropped by 24% for COVID-19 patients treated with the two drugs — tocilizumab and sarilumab — within 24 hours of being taken to intensive care units, it said, adding that the drugs can also shorten the period of hospitalization of patients by seven to 10 days.
Thanks for article. Where's Leo?
“We’re probably not even through the first inning of what we’re going to learn here,” said Wendy Holman, CEO of Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, which is working with Merck & Co. on an antiviral drug against COVID-19. Holman spoke during a Fierce JPM Week panel on COVID-19 therapeutics Monday.
Your might want to keep an eye on the oral antiviral Molnupiravir (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) from Ridgeback Biotherapeutics and Merck. There are four P2 clinical trials in process that are enrolling >3,000 participants total. The first trial is estimated to complete in late January and the last trial in late May 2021.
The peer reviewed article of in vitro results was published in April (google it if you’re interested). The peer reviewed article of animal study results is here (Dec 03, 2020):
Therapeutically administered ribonucleoside analogue MK-4482/EIDD-2801 blocks SARS-CoV-2 transmission in ferrets
From the abstract:
Therapeutic treatment of infected animals with MK-4482/EIDD-2801 twice a day significantly reduced the SARS-CoV-2 load in the upper respiratory tract and completely suppressed spread to untreated contact animals. This study identified oral MK-4482/EIDD-2801 as a promising antiviral countermeasure to break SARS-CoV-2 community transmission chains.
NLS is a "preclinical" CRO. They handle research up to the point where the device/drug enters clinical trials. Given that, they would NOT be contracted to handle the clinical trial for IPIX.
Brilacidin will likely be given to 60 people since the trial is placebo controlled. And those 60 people might be split into different dosing levels. We'll know for sure when the trial details are posted. I agree that the data better be great.
It would mean a lot to me if IPIX issues a PR that dosing has started. As I wrote in an earlier post, getting FDA approval to proceed was the start of the trial imo. FDA approval was the part that was outside of IPIX's control. The progress of the trial is a greater concern.
Why?
There are over 3,000 CTs recruiting or not yet recruiting listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Each of these trials have a company or CRO that is contacting hospitals and competing to dose a finite pool of patients willing to try unproven therapies. IPIX has an additional challenge since their trial is blinded and placebo controlled. They need to find the subset of patients in hospitals that are set up to do these kinds of trials.
As to the CRO hired . . . again, I look at the number of other CTs ongoing and consider the financial resources of IPIX and I wonder what quality of CRO IPIX can afford. I also wonder about the staff available to IPIX to manage the CRO and address issues as they come up.
So for me, getting a PR from IPIX stating that they have started dosing patients would be a big deal.
Your statement about IPIX's lease obligation needs to be corrected.
Go to page 17 of IPIX's latest 10Q (IPIX 10Q filed on 11/16/20) and you'll see their lease obligations for 2021 through 2024 totalling $523,000. These lease payments are around the neck of IPIX and the shareholders are the ones "Hanging from a Noose".
To make matters worse, IPIX filed a lawsuit to try to wiggle out of their obligation. The lawsuit is doomed and is a further waste of time and money.
Posters on this board have pointed to the way this lease was handled as an indication of management competence. I agree.
Not "doubts". Statements of fact.
As other posters have said, given the market cap it's possible the stock could rise suddenly on good news. So I see this as a speculative position and will try to take advantage of a pop.
I don’t think IPIX’s track record on P2 trials supports your assertion: “If a SUCCESS...money, grants even partnerships...lots of money will flow...because the efficacy as a therapeutic will have been confirmed. Yippie!!!”
Consider the following: brilacidin for ABSSSI P2 was a “success”, brilacidin for OM P2 was a “success”, kevetrin for ovarian cancer P2 was a “success”, and prurisol for chronic plaque psoriasis was a “success”.
All without financial benefit.
If you don’t think Dr Sax would find the lab data compelling why would anyone else find it compelling and use it as the basis for a clinical trial? The “greater fool” theory works sometimes in stock trading, but not in medicine I hope.
Since your hospital is part of the MGH/Brigham system I think a brief communication with Paul Sax would be a good use of your time. It appears he is a thought leader and he may be able to provide a comment on brilacidin and it’s potential.
I’m not being judgmental. I know you’re passionate and caring and it seems obvious to me that the most constructive use of that energy (beyond what you do in the ED) is to connect with someone who can really make a difference.
Sincerely.
I think this is the writing you referred to Ivermectin for COVID-19 — Breakthrough Treatment or Hydroxychloroquine Redux?
Have you ever had the opportunity to correspond with him to bring up the topic of brilacidin? Maybe a brief post to the "response" section could spark interest?
I don't think any one company stands to benefit. Merck’s patent expired in 1996 and ivermectin is available generically. You can find a list of brand name and generic ivermectin products here Ivermectin. Click on the “Products” link.
Some companies have patented different formulations of ivermectin. For example, Teva and Galderma went to court in 2019 over a cream formulation. But ivermectin itself is widely, and cheaply, available.
As an aside, I encountered ivermectin in the 1990s when I was using it to deworm livestock. At that time, it cost <$1/dose. It was available as an injection, but then came as a paste for oral dosing. Who would have known!
I'm curious as to where the part about "if CRO fails to carry out its mission...it does not get paid." comes from?
I found a Master Services Agreement between Corcept Therapeutics (biotech company) and ICON Clinical Research (CRO) from 2007 that was posted to the SEC website. There is an upfront payment and monthly payments thereafter.
Payment Terms – Any invoices submitted by ICON to CORCEPT shall include documentation and/or detail agreed upon by the Parties, and shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days after receipt by CORCEPT. Invoices may reference milestones and/or deliverables completed, including dates completed, as specified in the Project Contract. All pass-through costs shall be itemized in a form and in such detail as is agreed between the Parties as set forth in the Project Contract. Taxes (and any penalties thereon) imposed on any payment made by CORCEPT to ICON shall be the responsibility of ICON. Invoices will be submitted to CORCEPT’s representative as specified in the Project Contract.
(a) CORCEPT shall provide an upfront payment of *** set forth in the budget. CORCEPT shall not be obligated to make any upfront payments for pass-through costs, which shall be invoiced monthly as costs are incurred, or for investigator grants, which shall be wired by CORCEPT as needed. ICON shall submit to CORCEPT an invoice describing the Services provided and costs incurred during a particular month on a monthly basis and CORCEPT shall pay all invoiced amounts within thirty (30) days after receipt of such invoice. Interest may be charged in the amount of one percent (1%) per month (or part thereof) with respect to all invoices paid later than thirty (30) days after receipt by CORCEPT. Within sixty (60) days after the end of each Project, any funds in excess of the amounts set forth in the budget for such Project paid to ICON by CORCEPT with respect to such Project shall be returned to CORCEPT.
(b) If any portion of an invoice is disputed, the Parties shall use good faith efforts to reconcile differences or discrepancies with regard to any disputed amount of such invoice as soon as practicable. For clarity, CORCEPT shall pay all undisputed amounts under such invoice in accordance with Section 4.2(a) of this Master Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt by CORCEPT of such invoice.
If they exclude patients with hypertension from the COVID study they may not have many patients left since it is my understanding that pulmonary hypertension is a characteristic feature of ARDS. It’s a bit of a conundrum.
I don’t think the COVID study is planned to include a co-therapy, but we won’t know for sure until we get more information from IPIX.
Look at page 18 of the slide deck from the presentation they did at the 25th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2015). There you will see that 25 out of 159 patients treated with brilacidin reported hypertension > 160 mmHg.
25th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2015): “A Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Single-Dose and Short-Course Brilacidin...
Also note that the most recent trials of brilacidin (the P2 trial for OM and the P1 trial for colonic delivery) excluded patients with hypertension. That's something that wasn't done previously.
From “Exclusion Criteria” of P2 trial for OM:
10. Has untreated hypertension or has hypertension under treatment that meets protocol definitions.
e. Has untreated hypertension or has hypertension under treatment.
Thanks for your comments. I’ve been wondering how IPIX is going to find patients for their clinical trial. How many hospitals are set up to run clinical trials? I’m assuming it’s mostly the teaching hospitals. And given the number of clinical trials currently recruiting (2,186 per ClinicalTrials.gov) and not yet recruiting (an additional 913 per ClinicalTrials.gov) how is IPIX going to differentiate brilacidin from all the other drugs?
In my mind, the in vitro testing is somewhat irrelevant since I assume that all drugs moving into clinical trials have had successful in vitro testing. The past IV administration of brilacidin is problematic because of the significant adverse events, especially hypertension. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I assume hypertension is unwelcome in patients suffering from ARDS.
From your experience, is it likely that a hospital administrator would be willing to put their neck on the block and devote resources to a clinical trial of brilacidin? Some posters seem to believe that they will want to be associated with the gold standard/COVID killer, but my assumption is that they tend to be risk averse and more afraid of lawsuits and bad publicity.
TIAB, has your hospital participated in any clinical trials for COVID therapeutics? If so, can you give an idea of what was done? If not, can you explain why?
Look forward to your comments.
That is a cavalier brushoff of ivermectin.
Ivermectin has been dosed nearly 4 billion times over the past 30 years. It’s moa and safety issues are well known. Ivermectin is taken orally which is a huge advantage. Ivermectin has shown in vitro antiviral activity against viruses, including HIV, influenza, Zika, and COVID-19. There are 47 clinical trials for ivermectin for COVID-19 listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, including 22 that are currently recruiting (3 in the US).
Ivermectin is well ahead of brilacidin as a therapeutic for COVID-19 even with it’s documented weaknesses. It’s very interesting to see the uptake of this drug since it is unsponsored. There are no high-profile politicians promoting its use or deep-pocketed bp buying their way into scientific consciousness or clinical trials. Instead, there has been consistent investigation and research to clarify the potential of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
A couple recent YouTube videos might be worth watching:
Dr. John Campbell posted on Dec 12th, “Ivermectin and COVID”. I’ve been watching his YouTube channel since the early days of COVID and have found his commentary to be unbiased, conservative, and easily understood. His videos are somewhat slow paced.
Ivermectin and COVID 19
Ford Brewer, MD MPH posted a video today, January 2nd, “Ivermectin for COVID-19”. His vid covers much of the same material without the fancy British accent.
Ivermectin for COVID-19
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has developed a MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for COVID-19. Ivermectin is considered a core mediation. You can see their protocol here.
MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for COVID-19
Ivermectin has it’s flaws, but it’s also equally clear that many scientific institutions are working very hard right now to establish it’s therapeutic potential.
I wish good things for IPIX, but it's an insanely competitive field. There are 2,186 COVID-19 clinical trials currently recruiting patients. The sponsors of the trials are competing for the same pool of patients. Many have more robust scientific data and heaps more money to support their efforts and get the attention of hospital administrators and decision makers.
That doesn't change my opinion of whether or not the trial started. I want to see patients get dosed to see if brilacidin is a therapeutic option. Whether that happens in the US or elsewhere makes no difference to me.
I have my doubts as to whether it will work and, as I've written before, the Dec 9th financing arrangement will have a depressing effect on sp until we get a stellar pr from IPIX.
I agree with another poster's comment that results may not be known until 2nd quarter of 2021.
In my book, the trial start was achieved when the external obstacle was removed. Meaning, when the FDA granted approval to proceed. That was the piece IPIX had no control over.
Whether or not the trial proceeds is another matter. And then there's the itty bitty issue of whether it succeeds.
A chunk of selling today was tax loss selling. Today was the last day to sell and offset gains for 2020 tax bill. I'm interested to see how things go over the next 3-6 weeks while we await news on the clinical trial.
The Aspire deal and IPIX shareholders
In my post yesterday I showed that the Dec 9th purchaser could purchase shares at $0.123. If IPIX had instructed Aspire to purchase these exact same shares they would have paid $0.1676. That’s a difference of 36%. ((Need to take into account that IPIX granted Aspire 6,250,000 shares to consummate the $30 mil financing — call it 5%.)) So IPIX is financing themselves at a cost that is 30% higher than what it would have been had they stayed with Aspire. Does this make business sense to anyone?
Add to that the fact that in the Aspire deal IPIX is the one who decides when to trigger a purchase by Aspire. They can pick and choose the dates that work to their advantage. It’s the other way around in the Dec 9th deal.
Below is what I used to come up with the Aspire price.
The criteria for the pricing of an Aspire purchase:
(i) the lowest sale price for our common stock on the date of sale; or
(ii) the average of the three lowest closing sale prices for our common stock during the 12 consecutive business days ending on the business day immediately preceding the purchase date.
Not sure you can extrapolate a final share count. In any case, my concern is not the total number of shares outstanding, but rather the way the new shares will enter the market and the overhang that will deter new investors (especially those who are more sophisticated). And keep in mind that this latest financing is not much money compared to what is needed to develop a drug, and IPIX will likely be looking for more money in the not too distant future.
You might find it interesting to look at what happened to the share price in 2018 when IPIX did a smaller round of financing with the same terms as the Dec 9th deal. I did a post about that a few weeks ago and here are the important bits (including the press releases that were issued by IPIX).
So what happened in 2018? I took a look at the period from when the deal was announced to the end of the year 2018. I also looked at the PRs that IPIX issued during the same time period (list is below).
On the day the deal was announced, IPIX opened at $0.24. At the end of 2018 IPIX closed at $0.10 (they opened that day at $0.08). The PRs that IPIX issued during the time period suggested that positive things were happening on multiple fronts. Also, IPIX was a more robust organization with core staffing in place in 2018.
If you think the timeframe is too short, the share price closed on October 7, 2019 (1 year out) at $0.11. The decline in share price was most likely the result of dilution imo.
October 09, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS SECURES UP TO $10 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL FINANCING TO ADVANCE CLINICAL PIPELINE
October 12, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS BRILACIDIN AS A NOVEL INHIBITOR OF PHOSPHODIESTERASE 4 (PDE4) SUPPORTS ITS POTENTIAL TO TREAT AUTOIMMUNE AND INFLAMMATORY DISEASES
October 22, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS PROVIDES UPDATE ON KEVETRIN PROGRAM; BRIDGING TOXICOLOGY EFFORTS AIMED AT DEVELOPING AN ORAL P53 ANTI-CANCER DRUG CANDIDATE
October 24, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS GRANTED END-OF-PHASE 2 MEETING
November 01, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS EXPANDS BRILACIDIN PATENT PORTFOLIO
November 08, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS PROVIDES CORPORATE UPDATE HIGHLIGHTING BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND CLINICAL PIPELINE PRIORITIES
November 13, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS PRESENTING BRILACIDIN FOR INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE AT “IBD INNOVATE 2018” CONFERENCE HOSTED BY THE CROHN’S & COLITIS FOUNDATION
December 17, 2018
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS COMPLETES END-OF-PHASE 2 MEETING WITH FDA; BRILACIDIN ORAL RINSE TO ADVANCE INTO PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIALS FOR PREVENTION OF SEVERE ORAL MUCOSITIS
IPIX share price and the challenge ahead.
I may sound like a broken record, but a review of the math of the deal that IPIX entered into on Dec 9th is a graphic illustration of the amount of downward pressure that will be exerted on IPIX stock in the foreseeable future. The deal is as follows:
Dec 9 — 3,053 shares of preferred stock
Dec 9 + 60 trading days — 2,036 shares of preferred stock
Warrants to purchase another 10,019 shares of preferred stock split evenly between Series 1 warrants that expire in 18 months and Series 2 warrants that expire in 24 months.
The conversion of preferred stock to common is as follows:
1. Each share of preferred stock has an initial stated value of $1,080 (the purchaser paid $982.50 so they get 10% right off the bat).
2. Each share of preferred stock gets converted according to the following formula (the math example I’m presenting assumes “(ii)” as the conversion mechanism and the acronym for volume weighted average price is VWAP):
Each share of Series B-2 preferred stock has an initial stated value of $1,080 and may be converted at any time at the holder’s option into shares of our common stock at a conversion price equal of the lower of (i) $0.35 per share on or before August 15, 2021, and $0.50 per share thereafter, and (ii) 85% of the lowest volume weighted average price of our common stock as reported on Bloomberg L.P. on a trading day during the ten trading days prior to and ending on, and including, the conversion date.