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.
Gee - it almost looks like my post hit a nerve, or something. Agreed that responses of the type received tend to be a reliable indicator.
Nicely done. I would offer one more observation regarding the lawsuit. Referring to the complaint against CSM:
Not suggesting otherwise. The point is that the stock is trading at Roth's valuation right now and what is the basis for such an analysis?
Roth downgraded PPHM to $0.70. It would be interesting to see the basis for that valuation.
Exactly.
Not a bad way to put it, imo. That would convey the relevant technical info as well as the regulatory caveats. Indeed, I suspect that news framed in such a fashion would be regarded as bullish. The problem as is stands now is that the cat is already out of the bag on the trial results and subsequent discrepancy, so investors may view continuing silence on the matter as a bearish signal. Therefore, not releasing news has as much an impact on price discovery as releasing it.
Fire Fox - Both you and HonestAbe make great points. One observation: If the reconstructed data, (or any result of the investigation), is likely to induce buying or selling, shouldn't it be released immediately even if subsequent events might tend to "cancel" the impact of this news? The trial data was reported as a material event, the discrepancy was reported as a material event, so doesn't the investigation data becomes immediately material since it probably impacts the preceding two events which have already been priced in?
I agree that it would be unusual to put a time commitment on an impact evaluation announcement. However several posts here seemed to intimate that they did just that. For example, in your own excellent analysis, Analyze It Better 9.0:
I think we may be talking past each other.
If the alleged private email from IR set forth a "weeks not months" time frame for the following statement - "Peregrine intends to communicate further as soon as it is able to determine the impact of this issue" - and the follow up communication has indeed been made, then what, precisely, is the impact?
The Oct. 17th PR does not appear to make any statement that can fairly be construed to address the "impact" of the trial discrepancies. So if IR made a prior promise to anyone to issue such a statement in "weeks," it is still outstanding. The other possibility is that they never really promised anyone that they would comment on the "impact" in "weeks." This is why I would like to see that text of the actual email. I do recall a post by Fire Fox, but I couldn't find it (apparently it was deleted). I also reviewed the posts from Sept 24 to Sept 26, where I found references to the "weeks not months" post, but could not find the original post (No easy task the way iHub is set up, so I may have missed it.) Accordingly, if anyone has an email (or a transcript thereof) from IR that establishes a "weeks not months" time frame, it would be entirely appropriate to repost it here. Otherwise, the entire topic, imho, was just message board noise and not worthy of spin either way.
Easy there. No need for sniping. I have read the board and see no discussion "almost EVERY day," particularly one which has been dispositive. I think the inference made somewhere around Sept. 26 was that the company was going to communicate on the impact of the issue in "weeks not months," since that is what they claimed to be reviewing in the Sept 24 PR. I scrubbed through the posts during that period but can't seem to find the original post. Regardless, what I would really like to see is the actual text of the statement that was reported to have been issued by IR to one of the posters here. Does anyone actually have it? It's valuable intel if documented, otherwise it was just hearsay.
I've asked and also not gotten an answer. The reason for my interest is that shortly after the trial data mess was announced, some members here posted that IR had issued an email stating the investigation would be complete in "weeks not months" (or something to that effect.) I personally have not seen such an email, but if the statement was made and this slips past the two month mark, it could serve as a negative catalyst.
Md - when you contacted company weeks back, did they offer any time frame for the investigation into the mixup? According to others here, the original time frame set forth in an IR email was "weeks not months." But now they seem tight lipped.
Did they ever announce they were back on the ATM after announcing no more ATM?
Thanks. I'm trying to reconcile the various statements regarding the time window for the investigation. I recall the references here putting the time at "weeks and not months." Other than a report of a complete bust, any trial update from management should be the catalyst for a good short squeeze.
I think the "weeks not months" comment was made prior to the Oct 17 PR. It was posted here several times.
Anyone have an update from IR on the "weeks not months" investigation time frame?
Did anyone at the ASM gather any intel on the investigation progress? Is the timeframe still "weeks not months?"
Management did a $14MM ATM to pay for hard boiled egg bits?????
Great food tidbits: full-blown bagel treats, hard boiled egg bits, sour cream, onions, chives; all you could drink java; fruit; donuts, and bottled water. First-class meeting all-in-all, except content was almost totally boiler plate.
...sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
Wasn't Cotara the reason that TCLN surged to $80 way back when?
Cotara Phase III partnership ready. eom
Interesting to see how the shorts will play this today.
TA guys what to make of the paltry volume?
That's just reality. FDA has action/inaction/approval/rejection does have a tremendous impact on market valuation.
My main takeaway from the paper is that the class action lawyers have an uphill battle. i.e., the lawsuits are grounded in B.S.
Just wait til the shorts start suing cause they have to cover!
Looks like we have a little activity in PPHM today.
Will the shorts be able to file a class action suit if the share price goes back up to $5.00?
"If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve as lead plaintiff..."
A case without a client?
Pathetic.
"Do they have money to cover the law suits that are lined up , will they have to sell shares to pay lawyers and pay back the people that lost money during the period that they said that the trials were positive . I think that this is a hold and wait and see stock ,the smart stock holder sold , the smart possible future stock holders are waiting and reading not buying . This will be very interesting to follow and could go either way."
Another interesting question is WHY there are lawsuits lined up. Lawyers usually only chase "deep pockets." Cash to operate though April 2013 is not "deep pockets." In the 15 years that I've followed this stock, I don't recall a single "shareholder rights" lawsuit even thought there have been other disappointments and complaints about management. Are the lawyers expecting the company pockets to suddenly get "deep?"
Damages from CSM...
From lawsuit posted earlier:
"As a proximate result of CSM's negligence, Plaintiff will continue to incur costs associated with analyzing and evaluating CSM's conduct. As a further proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff may suffer a delay in bringing Bavituximab to market and impact to the value of the platform before commercialization, causing damages in an amount to be proven at trial."
What about the impact of a delayed product launch?
What is the lost revenue per day?
15K @1.3169? Possible misprint?