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.
They way I see it is the stock price won't move until we get confirmation on clinical data and we get institutional coverage as in buy the sucker cause it's good. Saying that, we have a hurdle in that institutions will not buy a $1.00 stock. Will they buy a $3 or $5 stock? Possibly. But to get to $3 or $5, the market cap needs to be $675 mil to $1.1 bil. See the problem? The company will not get there without institutional ownership and institutional ownership will not happen until the company gets in that stock price range (which probably requires a reverse split). And the further the company gets from getting there, the harder it is to move forward. If the company gets delisted, I think a shareholder revolt and forced sale is a real possibility.
Doubt it. Those applications were filed in 2003, long before Duke got involved.
I doubt anything happens pr wise until the Russell issue ends which is the end of June. According to BOT, company has to resolve financing issues and delisting issue. The question I have is can you realistically expect a nasdaq delisting extension if you're way off from compliance, ie $.40 versus say $.80 cents. What will drive the price if all you have is retail shareholders? If in fact delisting becomes a reality, I would prefer the company be put up for sale by an IB or mgmt lays out a definitive plan on how and when value will be achieved. No more "were in talks" bs. I think mgmt needs their feet held to the fire. Granted there is risk that the technology may not work. We don't need the added risk that mgmt may not succeed. We've alreadly been there, done that.
The recent grants seem to track the research going on at Duke. My guess is this is a coincidence because they were filed in 2003. The patents IMO are very related based on preliminary reading.
On another topic, I see rough sledding until the end of June when Russell issue ends.
Recent Patent Grants
7384909
Disclosed are surprising discoveries concerning the role of anionic phospholipids and aminophospholipids in tumor vasculature and in viral entry and spread, and compositions and methods for utilizing these findings in the treatment of cancer and viral infections. Also disclosed are advantageous antibody, immunoconjugate and duramycin-based compositions and combinations that bind and inhibit anionic phospholipids and aminophospholipids, for use in the safe and effective treatment of cancer, viral infections and related diseases.
Filed Aug 15 2003 Granted June 10 2008
7378386
Disclosed are surprising discoveries concerning the role of anionic phospholipids and aminophospholipids in tumor vasculature and in viral entry and spread, and compositions and methods for utilizing these findings in the treatment of cancer and viral infections. Also disclosed are advantageous antibody, immunoconjugate and duramycin-based compositions and combinations that bind and inhibit anionic phospholipids and aminophospholipids, for use in the safe and effective treatment of cancer, viral infections and related diseases.
Filed Aug 15 2003 Granted May 27 2008
And there can't be and won't be. It's due to the non-compliance issue. I'll repeat, mgmt was advised over two years ago to do a reverse split in order to attract institutional interest. They did not listen. Mgmt has benefited from this ill fated decision because they have given themselves very cheap options on the milestones achieved. Too bad the milestones did not include protecting shareholder value.
Like I said earlier, Thorpe and crew must be getting frustrated with world class tech surronded by abundant resources (UTSW) and then dealing with a third world mgmt team.SK to Phil "Sorry Phil. We know you're technology that's sitting on the bench is incredible, but we can't seem to manage our finances. Oh, by the way Phil, that lunch you had at Subway last month when you were at the conference will not be reimbursed. We're cutting back Phil. Sorry."
The language is confusing because I think in one place the 180 days is the max limit and then the stock gets delisted. I'll do some more research but once you get the 180 extension, you get delisted. The R/S issue should have been dealt with during the 180 day extension. If that is the case, if they have to be reinstated, the min share price is $4.00 which would require a R/S. Please confirm with mgmt.
This is from Feuerstein's mailbag from Sept 07. Doesn't look like he does a lot of digging. Also, he's is right about the PR this last Monday. Most experts would have shot holes in it. And you already know why mgmt released it.
Chris S. is a frustrated shareholder of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals. He writes, "I have been in this company for six years! Ugh, what a disapointment! I can't understand that with no negative reports about their drugs they can't seem to sustain a fair market price. Please enlighten me!"
Chris, sometimes a chart will tell you all you need to know -- and Peregrine's isn't pretty. As you're painfully aware, this stock has been a single-digit midget since 2000. I don't think it has traded above $3 since 2002. Right now, the stock sits at 67 cents.
I hadn't looked at Peregrine for years before getting your email, but what I remembered about them was that they were developing drugs -- vascular targeting agents -- that sought to disrupt and destroy the blood vessels that feed tumors.
A quick glance at the company's Web site shows that the VTA technology seems to be on the back burner in favor of some new anticancer and antiviral drugs.
I know the market isn't always right, but in this case, it's hard to argue against its verdict on Peregrine. Sorry, Chris.
OT but related. German biotech company Jerini has hired Credit Suisse to explore strategic options, including a possible sale of the company, two sources familiar with the situation told Reuters on Tuesday.
The move by Berlin-based Jerini to sound out buyers follows a spate of biotechnology deals on both sides of the Atlantic, in which large pharmaceutical companies have paid big premiums to secure promising assets in clinical development.
International consultancy Ernst & Young predicted recently that the convergence of the biotech and pharma industries would continue unabated in 2008, and leading drugmakers are continuing their shopping spree.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINL034256920080603?rpc=44
We really need the Ph 2 soon and I would love to see PPHM sold sooner than later. With the broad based potential of Bavi, it needs to be w/ deep pockets to research all the avenues.
Avastin and Erbutix are in hundreds of trials. We are having trouble getting three off the ground.
Link doesn't work. What does it say?
Could the deal be w/ Halo? That would make sense as long as PPHM was protected. Also, would HALO be involved in negotiations if the operations were being sold to a competitor? I would not want to upset PPHM's biggest customer.
Re: Financing
I can see this scenario playing out. PPHM does a deal w/ a BP for Avid, which so happens to be one of the BP's interested in buying PPHM. All of a sudden production runs get delayed, production runs are incorrectly mixed, shipments delayed, a fire, or a study is complete and the supplier determines the product was defective -- you name it; all honest mistakes.
BP knows PPHM needs the product to complete the studies to create value and time is not on PPHM's side. Let's see, a $20 mil deal determines the value on several hundred million dollars. BP couldn't care about getting a $2 to $3 mil annual rev on a $20 mil investment when they can influence a several hundred mil deal (or more). Or they don't want PPHM's pipeline to compete so they hinder it.
Don't want to sound like a cynic but I think the PPHM mgmt team has been a little naive as it relates to financing.
My guess is the Phase 2 India trials are on hold until company can demonstrate resources available to complete trials, in other words get the financing done. If you're going to ask people to roll the dice in life or death situations by agreeing to experimental treatment, the company should have the resources to complete treatment.
Nasdaq hearings process.
http://www.nasdaq.com/about/FAQsHearings.stm
From what BOT says, looks like no movement in price for a while and many milestones and cheap options to be earned in the meantime. Mgmt must be giddy.
Looked at GNTA.OB. I hope we don't have the same fate. Check out the 10 year chart. Talk about running the company into the dirt.
Interesting comparisons. Many PIPES, a poison pill in 2005 to "protect" shareholder value, many R&R presentations, several restructures to focus yady ya. The real downfall started in May 2004 when their blockbuster failed in Phase 3. Looks like they beat the horse to death trying it on other cancers.
So they really didn't have a great product from what I can tell.
The financing announced today with the convertible is very dilutive, 100,000 shares for every $1,000 in principal. Ouch!!
What scares me is going OTC. Do the financing alternatives really get that bad when you go to the OTC or is it pipeline related. My guess is that it's both due to lack of oversight and liquidity in the OTC.
I would prefer a forced sale versus going OTC at this point.
The results sounded great but it was too early and not enough data in terms of number of patients. The pr was put out to counter the Russell selling. Just like the previous great news releases timed with the PIPES.
Jazz,
Can you compare Avastin to Bavi.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-bevacizumab
Why wouldn't Genetech or some other player buy Bavi? Why are we trading at $.40 with Avid's value about $.13 per share of that $.40? Am I missing something? Is Bavi and Cotara worth $60 mil combined?
Here's a summary of some early phase 2 results for Avastin. How can we be trading at $.40 while Avastin probably provides $12 bil in market cap to Genetech (with all the side effects)?
Bevacizumab has been studied in Phase II and III trials in over 1900 patients with meta-static colorectal cancer ( Table 1 ).[15,21-33] Two multicenter Phase III trials provided the bulk of efficacy and safety evidence leading to the approval of labeling as a first-line agent for meta-static colorectal cancer. The first of these trials randomized 925 previously untreated patients to therapy with (1) the Saltz regimen, (2) the Saltz regimen plus bevacizumab, or (3) fluorouracil, leucovorin, and bevacizumab.[21] The third group was later withdrawn from the study when new evidence demonstrated survival superiority for the Saltz regimen over the fluorouracil-leucovorin combination. The Saltz regimen plus bevacizumab had significant advantages compared with the Saltz regimen alone in overall survival time (20.3 versus 15.6 months [ p = 0.00003]), progression-free survival time (10.6 versus 6.24 months [ p < 0.00001]), overall response rate (45% versus 35% [ p = 0.0029]), and duration of response (10.4 versus 7.1 months [ p = 0.0014]).[21] Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were similar between the groups. However, grade 3 hypertension was significantly higher in the bevacizumab group (10.9% versus 2.3%).
Breast Cancer
Angiogenesis is an important step in the proliferation of breast cancer cells and is thought to precede invasive disease.[14] Immunohistochemistry staining has found high levels of VEGF in ductal carcinoma in situ cells, further rationalizing the investigation of bevacizumab for breast cancer. Two Phase III trials and three Phase II trials are seeking to identify bevacizumab's exact role in various combinations with capecitabine, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine and as monotherapy ( Table 2 ).[14,27,35-41] The only completed Phase III trial compared capecitabine monotherapy with capecitabine plus bevacizumab in 462 patients with metastatic breast cancer.[35,36] Inclusion criteria included prior treatment with an anthracycline and a taxane agent. No significant difference was found for time to disease progression (4.17 months for the control group versus 4.86 months for the bevacizumab group [hazard ratio, 0.98]). However, the overall response rate favored bevacizumab (19.8% versus 9.1% [ p = 0.001]). Bevacizumab was associated with hypertension, proteinuria, and minor mucosal bleeding. Evaluation of selected tumor samples showed that overexpression of VEGF RNA was not associated with response rate in the capecitabine-bevacizumab group.[36]
Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Two Phase II trials of bevacizumab for stage IIIb and IV non-small-cell lung cancer are ongoing ( Table 3 ).[32,33,42-45] In these studies, bevacizumab is being combined with either carboplatin-paclitaxel or erlotinib in various dosage regimens. As a result of fatal hemoptysis in four patients receiving carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab, future clinical trials are likely to exclude patients with a history of hemoptysis.[32,33,42,43] The Phase II trial ( n = 34) with erlotinib demonstrated a partial response in 20% of patients and stable disease in 65%.[44] The median overall survival time was 12.6 months. A Phase III trial now under way is comparing the combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab with carboplatin plus paclitaxel. Patients with squamous-cell carcinoma are excluded, since this subset was associated with hemoptysis in the Phase II trial.[42]
Phase III data must be available before bevacizumab can be recommended as part of a standard treatment regimen for non-small-cell lung cancer.
Zimmer Lucas was involved in a PPHM financing about five years ago. They owned close to 5 mil shares but sold out about 18 months ago (ballpark ownership and timing). So their involvement with the company goes back a while. Just wondering if they're involved with a financing deal in progress.
Hmmmm. They probably sold this week and might be in the process as we speak. They as well as other institutions held the shares as part of the Russell Microcap Index. PPHM will be booted because the share price was below $1.00 on May 30. About 8.6 mil shares need to be sold.
Good move PL. A R/S doesn't add value but getting kicked off a major index and having a stock price that puts the company in non-compliance with delisting issues doesn't help with value either. How many investment professionals will recommend a non-compliant stock in investment committee meetings? Maybe 1 in 100.
OT somewhat. Just listened to Carl Icahn on MSNBC talking about the YHOO MSFT deal. He is mounting a proxy fight to get mgmt to sell to MSFT. He stated that mgmt and the BOD is too entrenched and is not looking out for the interests of shareholders. He said mgmt has created several poison pill type deal points that have killed the deal. He has garnered support from the shareholder base and thinks that it is important for shareholders to get together and demand accountability.
As it relates to PPHM, I would want to see a definitive plan to create value and sell or partner. Enough of the "we're in talks". If the ship doesn't right itself soon, we need some accountability. If we end up going OTC, the proxy fight will begin.
Terry,
The PR Monday was intentionally vague and the trial was way to early to draw conclusions. IMO, the reason mgmt put it out was to counteract the Russell selling. Can you imagine what the price would have been without it with 3 millions shares that were dumped. I think the retail investor is tapped out, tired and frustrated. IMO, someone is buying up the shares. Otherwise we would have seen $.35. All IMO.
I am hoping mgmt has the fear of someone coming in and booting them out.
I would rather go reverse split at this juncture. The value of PPHM right now depends on the results of Phase 2 and equally important, what entities can invest if the data is good. If the data is bad, it doesn't matter. If it's good but institutions can't invest because of the OTC exchange, the retail investor will not drive price.
I'm hoping for a buyout once we get decent data. If and when we get decent data, much more capital will be needed to go to the next level. This mgmt team has proven themselves to be inept from a financial perspective.
If mgmt loses the nasdaq listing, you could see a forced sale. There are too many shareholders that have had enough.
Hopefully not too much more downside. I've been wrong before with PPHM though.
Here's an abstract from 2007. The study was for Russell 3000 which is more widely held. Note the deletions get hammered right off the bat while the additions increase at event time.
Abstract:
We argue that the recent changes in reconstitution procedures introduced by the Frank Russell Company to ease the migration of affected constituents into and out of index-tracking portfolios, as well as continued growth in the size of speculative capital devoted to the event merit another study of the Russell reconstitution effects. We build upon Madhavan (2003) and conduct a more direct test of the role of order flow imbalances and liquidity changes on returns of Russell 3000 additions and deletions. Our results support both price pressure and index membership hypotheses. While index deletions are heavily sold far ahead of, during, and long after the event, the trading of additions is focused close to the event date. We find that the Russell reconstitution effect weakens during the more recent years. Price pressure-induced reversal effects are found to be much smaller to nonexistent in the recent years.
That's the bright spot. Kinda like the Dali Lama saying I will find total peace on my death bed.
EZ,
Sorry not a basher, just a very frustrated shareholder with many shares. My frustration led me to do some research as to why the stock tanked after decent news. I researched the Russell requirements and determined the trading action was related to getting booted from the microcap index.
I want to see the stock go way up but I think that might require a change in mgmt. If we get delisted, after mgmt stated that listing was a top priority, that should be the catlyst for change. I would much prefer a reverse split and maintaining a nasdaq listing versus OTCBB. If you think there have been games played with the current listing, you're in for a rough road with OTC. Either mgmt is completely inept (in the financial mgmt of PPHM) or they are part of a plan to transfer cheap shares from retail to someone in mgmt's camp.
If in fact the nasdaq listing is as important as PL said in the cc, then the wheels should be turning for a reverse split in the event mgmt needs to go that route. If delisting occurs, the price needs to be $4.00 per share to regain the listing which would probably require a reverse split anyway.
I'm just hoping the Russell selling is now and not at the end of the month. Are they're players shorting now with intentions of settling on rebalance day? (Or delisting day?) Some well timed meaningful pr's could backfire on the shorts (if in fact the shorts are the current sellers).
"That all hinges on the quality and success of the science findings being delivered over the next few months." And the skills of those negotiating any such deal. I believe in the tech. Not convinced mgmt has the ability. Either they're complete morons for messing up the financial side so badly or geniuses for delivering cheap shares for the buyer.
Barclays is Russell related as with most of the others. Many of them have small funds that track the Russell. As for timing, I don't know if the selling is from shorting knowing there's a big dump at the end of June. I plotted the chart over 4 years and you can see the changes related to inclusion versus getting kicked out.
As for OTC issues and Naz delisting issues, I think it's huge if you want to get institutional interest which is what it will take to move the price. If you're presenting to investment committee, you would never dream of recommending a OTC penny stock. Institutions play it safe. Like I said, either mgmt is completely ignorant as to how institutions and wall st works or there is some other agenda (which doesn't favor retail shareholders short term). If there's a buyout in play, cheap shares will help those that hold until the end.
I doubt they have the balls to go private because I think you'll see lawsuits and a forced sale.
From a recent Haynes paper
January 2007 Publication in J. Of Virology
Note Received 30 April 2007/ Accepted 2 October 2007
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/1/115
Either mgmt is clueless with respect to issues like Russell rebalance or the time required to get publications out, or they really want a low price and they are not defending the stock price. How can you not know there will be 10 mil shares of selling pressure when you need to get compliance. Which is it?
From CAVD.
http://www.cavd.org/progressAbstracts.shtml#haynes
Interim Report, Submitted on 2/1/08
Our goal is to acquire proof of concept data that manipulation of the immunoregulatory controls of B cell immune responses to HIV-1 Env, coupled with enhanced immunogen design, can lead to safe induction of broadly reactive neutralizing antibody responses. We are using a two armed approach to the problem of induction of antibodies that broadly neutralize HIV.
The Kelsoe, Haynes and Thorpe laboratories are developing immunogen formulations that trigger B cells normally tolerant to the desired Envelope epitopes and regions. Garnett Kelsoe is determining the origins, development, physiology, and fates of marginal zone, transitional and B1 B cell populations in animal models including mice and non-human primates. Haynes is determining the role of tolerance mechanisms, and TLR signaling on control of broadly reactive B cell activation,
and Philip Thorpe is determining the role of lipid binding of anti-HIV antibodies and anti-phosphatidylserine (PS) autoantibodies to protection from HIV infection. We have completed the first protection trial to determine if anti-beta-2-glycoprotein-1 antibodies can prevent infection or early viral destruction of the immune system in acute SIV infection.
Jazz,
You can argue that the "no progression" could also mean that the study was so early that the cancer did not have time to progress. I thought it was a great pr then after reading about 10 phase II studies trying to compare bavi's results, I came to the conclusion that either it is too early to draw conclusions or it works so well you can really get excited. I think the PR yesterday was an effort support price for an institutional dump or the short game again now that PPHM will get booted from the Russell Microcap. Based on market cap we should be in the upper end of the range, but Russell requires a $1.00 min price. So we have 10 million shares to unload.
Look at a chart over a four year period. Booted in 2005, rejoined in 2006 and booted again in 2007. Notice the pattern. I'm hoping that mgmt is ready to partner and we have a home for the dumpage. If not, another financial blunder that mgmt will benefit from when they grant themselves milestone options when the Duke paper comes out and India trials start.
My retired IB friend told me two years ago that the company needed to do a reverse split to keep the institutions involved. Mgmt would not listen. He recently talked to his friends still active. They reiterated, great pipeline potential, weak mgmt particulary in the finance area and understanding how Wall St works. I now have to agree with him.
Why the selling? Getting booted from the Russell Microcap is probably why.
Stocks must trade at or above $1.00 on their primary exchange on May 31 to be eligible for inclusion in the Russell U.S. indexes during annual reconstitution or during the IPO eligibility periods.
Total shares held by institutions is about 10.3 million of which the majority is related to micro cap. See institutional holdings.
So mgmt wants to keep nasdaq compliance by July 21 when there will be 10 million shares of selling pressure by the end of June.
Call me a basher but is mgmt completely inept or do they want to tube this thing? I prefer the company be sold now versus another downward spiral.
http://www.russell.com/Indexes/about/russell_indexes_construction_methodology_overview.asp
The Avastin Phase II with docetaxel had an overall response rate of 52% with a median of 6 cycles (28 day cycle) with a range of 1 to 15 cycles with 27 patients in the trial. If Bavi shows a 45% response rate with the earliest patient treated Feb 12 (about 3.5 cycles) and the rest of the 11 treated to date having only completed about 2 cycles, we should see an improvement in overall response rate.
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/10/3124
Jazz, am I interpreting this correctly?
BTW, not a paid basher, just a very very frustrated shareholder.
As a comparison, Avastin results are as follows. Overall response rate was 52%. What I gather from today's PR, bavi's overall response was 45%. The avastin results did not breakdown between complete response or partial response. Also, I sure the avastin study had more time to see continuing effects.
Jazz,
What's your take on this?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16707611
Things are not looking good regarding delisting. If all they could muster on 3 mill shares is breakeven with decent news, how will the company get to $1.00 in 50 days? Will the Duke paper do it? Doubt it. Will the start of another trial do it? Doubt it. Will a finance deal do it? It has not done so in the past. Trouble in Tustin? Where is our investment banker? What is going on with all the talks?
Jazz,
It appears that AVANT vaccine data blows Cotara out of the water. According to the article, Median survival time was 33 months.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0218369320080602?rpc=44&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
However the abstract did not include the survival time.
http://www.abstract.asco.org/AbstView_55_35840.html
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00458601?term=cdx-110&rank=1
Not the results I was hoping for. I was hoping for something like this:
After completion, 8 of the 11 patients walked to the local bar, jumped over the counter, downed two fifths of vodka and arm wrestled everyone in the bar, including the local olympic wrestling champion. After that time, 6 of the patients rode bareback thru the town square. The othe two patients remained in the bar with the local town mascot, the black bear and continued to drink vodka until passing out. No serious side effects were observed.