Life long Maverick: Seen it ALLl in 40 yrs of PROF. exposure as invest analyst/port mgr on the FRONT lines vs iHub Msg Bds.
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.
Dr. Bala re:
Fortunately it does not appear that BrEXIT will have a noticeable impact given Cognate mfg in both MemphisTN USA and Sawston UK
UNLIKE what Cancer Research UK indicates in this exclusive article:
Exclusive
Brexit delay to lifesaving cancer treatment ‘will hit children hardest’
Leading cancer charities have expressed their alarm that a no-deal Brexit could have a grave impact on ‘lifesaving research’ to treat childhood cancers.
It comes after the publication of the government’s Yellowhammer papers, which warned that medicines would be ‘particularly vulnerable to severe delays’ in the event of Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal.
The documents also highlighted that ‘three-quarters of medicines’ come from the EU.
Cancer charities are now calling on the government to take steps to ensure the ‘supply of medicines and lifesaving research’ which are so vital to treating children’s cancers, are not harmed by a no-deal Brexit, after Boris Johnson reaffirmed his commitment to leaving the EU with or without a deal on October 31.
Cancer research UK says that more than a quarter of the clinical trials that it funds involved at least one other EU country, which are ‘particularly important for rare and children’s cancers’.
The charity’s head of policy, Emlyn Samuel, told Metro.co.uk: ‘It’s imperative that a “no-deal” Brexit does not disrupt the supply of medicines and medicinal products to the UK, or threaten vital international research collaboration.
‘More than a quarter of the clinical trials that Cancer Research UK funds involve at least one other EU country, and these are particularly important for rare and children’s cancers.
‘The Government is putting contingency plans in place to minimise disruption. But despite these measures, the scale of this challenge means that some risks inevitably remain.
‘Whatever the outcome on 31 October, the Government must take action to ensure that people with cancer are protected.’
Children with Cancer UK has echoed those calls and is calling on the government to prevent any damage to ‘essential lifesaving research’ which is ‘vital to improving survival rates’.
Acting CEO Mark Brider said: ‘Like most medical research charities, Children with Cancer UK works closely with European counterparts to research and develop new and better treatments.
‘Childhood cancers are very different to those found in adults, but all too often doctors have to rely upon treatments designed for adults.
‘This can leave children facing lifelong health problems as their small bodies struggle to cope with toxic medicines.
‘Research into childhood cancer is vital to improving survival rates as well as quality of survival for the 4,500 children and young people diagnosed with cancer in the UK every year.
‘Whilst we don’t yet know what the full impact will be on new and ongoing studies, we would be concerned if a no deal Brexit caused significant delay to this essential lifesaving research.’
Got a story for Metro.co.uk?
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. For more stories like this, check our news page.
Not surprised when litigiousness trumped by NO Balance in Legal Strategy:
The 16 other states likely will get a small fraction of their filings for damages IMHO!
I sensed for years that the astute Sackler’s funneled their largess into secret tax havens!
Such is just one of many examples of The EXTREMES of our Capitalist Society on
Pilfering the Masses and wrecking their respective markets to Natural Disasters and
HOW can one recover??? seen worldwide due to ACCELERATED Climate Change!
RESULT :
Purdue Pharma Seeks Bankruptcy to Short-Circuit Opioid Suits
Jef Feeley and Steven Church
(Bloomberg) -- Purdue Pharma LP filed for bankruptcy with a more than $10 billion plan to settle claims that it fueled the U.S. opioid epidemic by illegally pushing sales of its addictive OxyContin painkiller.
The Chapter 11 filing on Sunday in White Plains, New York, is designed to short-circuit more than 2,000 lawsuits against Purdue and its owners, the billionaire Sackler family. The settlement calls for the Sacklers to hand over Purdue to a trust controlled by the states, cities and counties that have sued to recoup billions of dollars they spent battling opioid addictions and overdoses.
Officials originally envisioned raising as much as $12 billion with the plan, which is backed by more than two dozen U.S. states and territories, along with many cities and counties that sued Purdue. In an emailed statement TKTK, Purdue officials reduced the potential settlement amount to more than $10 billion.
The Sacklers have guaranteed to pay a minimum of $3 billion as part of the settlement, with most of the sum generated by selling Purdue’s U.K.-based drugmaker Mundipharma.
The family has rejected calls by some state attorneys general to boost their payment to $4.5 billion, and almost 25 states are opposing the family’s settlement offer. States that aren’t satisfied with Purdue’s proposal will get a chance to voice their opposition before a bankruptcy judge approves its Chapter 11 plan.
The plan calls for Purdue officials to set up a trust responsible for operating the company, which would generate money that governments could use to bolster drug treatment and policing budgets. That entity, run by trustees appointed by a bankruptcy judge, also will oversee payouts to state and local governments that sued.
“This unique framework for a comprehensive resolution will dedicate all the assets and resources of Purdue for the benefit of the American public,” Steven Miller, the drugmaker’s board chairman, said in an emailed statement.
Bigger Bite
Opponents argue Purdue’s plan isn’t enough of a reckoning for the Sacklers, who made billions from the over-prescribing of OxyContin that was spurred by the company’s allegedly illegal marketing. It also won’t provide enough reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths and addiction damage inflicted on millions of U.S. families, opponents say.
“Irrespective of Purdue’s actions or evasions, we will continue to pursue justice on behalf of those harmed by the Sacklers’ greed, callousness, and fraud,” Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said in an emailed statement.
The Sacklers and Purdue officials had hoped to persuade 35 attorneys general to back the current settlement proposal. That super-majority would have held more sway with a bankruptcy judge when it came time to win final approval of the deal. As of Sunday, the company said it had the support of as many as 29 U.S. states and territories, according to the release.
Purdue planned to file for protection from creditors by the end of September to avoid facing a Cleveland jury that’s scheduled to hear evidence starting next month in the first federal trial over the opioid epidemic.
Public Nuisance
A host of other opioid makers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and drug distributors like McKesson Corp., will face claims they created a public nuisance across the U.S. with their mishandling of the medicines.
States and municipalities contend drugmakers, distributors and pharmacy chains conducted illegal marketing campaigns pushing the painkillers, failed to adequately oversee orders and ignored red flags about unusually frequent retail sales.
In March, Purdue settled claims brought by the state of Oklahoma for $270 million, and another defendant, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., also reached a, $85 million deal to avoid trial. J&J, which refused to settle, was ordered to pay $572 million for creating a public nuisance in the state with its over-promotion of its opioid pain medicines.
--With assistance from Dawn McCarty.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at jfeeley@bloomberg.net;Steven Church in Wilmington, Delaware at schurch3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rick Green at rgreen18@bloomberg.net, ;David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, Virginia Van Natta
FULL DISCLOSURE:
Before OxyContin, I worked with Dr. Richard Sackler for months successfully as an entrepreneur on changing residential real estate zoning in an elite town.
There is really NOTHING that is not ALREADY DISCLOSED per the Last TWO Annual Shareholders Meeting as to your conversation with VP David Innes:
1) Would CEO accept a Buyout OFFER
The fact that so many have been Totally UNAWARE says to any logical mind that one only pays attention to what they want to hear like when SAP and all the paraphernalia surrounding it at the EXCLUSION of all else that CEO Linda Powers STATES. Same for what SVP Les Goldman and other Board Members like Jawonoski?
For a THOUGH read with supporting documentation see:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=148898295
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=148898295
2) MB’s do UNDERMINE a CEO like Linda Powers in Pied Pipers leading their flock way too often ASTRAY and sometimes for slaughter versus The CEO who has her pulse on every VITAL issue facing NWBO.
3)Few, if any, BEFORE May 2019 had a clear idea of GETTING Your NWBO shares OUT of Street Name and INTO YOUR NAME
!
ALL of these two Annual Shareholder Meetings have been transcribed: the last one by IkeEsq!
So it is not possible that any of my remarks are mere inferences but instead THE ONLY INTERPRETATION that lots of posters have run AFOUL of the Ground Rules of Investing by giving
DEFERENCE to non transparent Pied Piper PUNDITS since 2015!
Mutiny on the Bounty is RARELY ever successful:
I DID ONE on FIRST try:
NO experience!
And in record time!
Lots of folks here on a non stop carousel by NOT focusing on the mindset and what CEO Linda Powers
Has STATED in it’s ENTIRETY versus what we see here in dribs and drabs! and mostly here say without expert corroboration let alone links!..... preferring instead to the growing infectious metastasis here
iwasadiver Photonic5; and AlphaPuppy have been the KEY DRIVERS here!
NVCR Insider Selling is NOT significant YET as some grandstanding posters make it out to be as the TOTAL picture is HERE:
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FilingID=13353947&RcvdDate=4/10/2019&CoName=NOVOCURE%20LTD&FormType=DEF%2014A&View=html
ALSO:
IF NWBO is successful MAYBE get a real WHALE compared to ALL the minnow posts
here on NVCR which have NO REAL RELEVANCE in the REAL world versus what some would like to promulgate for their own aura along with clear deflections diversions:
REAL TIME NET WORTH
$6B
as of 6/29/19
Hansjoerg Wyss' fortune stems from his 2012 sale of medical device manufacturer Synthes, which he founded, to Johnson & Johnson for $20.2 billion.
He now holds stakes in publicly-traded biotech companies NovoCure and Molecular Partners.
[t][/t]Blue_Skies re:
@Poor Lack of management credibility is an issue to the investment community and is one reason people (pharma) does not take the Dcvax product line seriously. Too many innuendos with no follow through. Eventually the company will either release unblinded results which support FDA approval or the company goes BR. Currently the company does not have much money.
Just my thoughts
BWIS re:
Maverick does this 911 share trade really mean anything?
Photonic5; AlphaPuppy AND iwasadiver have been the KEY DRIVERS here!
re:
This penny trading doesn’t really interest me. I believe in the product and I believe NWBO’s worth is over $20 billion with positive topline data.
FINALLY an IntraDay by Sojourner re:
Yeah, the 2 - 3:30 shakeout has started like yesterday.
Hbpainter re:
It's a long story!!
Basin Street Blues Member Level Monday, 08/04/14 10:30:18 AM
Re: None
Post #
16524
of 244109
HI Everyone,
Some true statements:
1. DCVAC / L: Phase 1, Phase 2 great results, anecdotal evidence everywhere and well into P3 trials.
2. PEI approval, German government reimbursement even for non Germans! Almost definite evidence that FDA shared info with Germany.
3. DCVAC / D: Superb early results 9 out of 9 etc etc.
4. NWBO Huge presence at ASCO , major PR event to the industry professionals
5. Evaluate Pharma: Rank us 7th most important R&D in the word with the 6 above us all owned / aligned with major Pharma...
Seeing as all of the above is in the public domain WHY is our Institutional ownership less that 10%? (btw PUMA was above 80%).
NWBO is owned on the whole between LP and retail (that’s us) …she has no institutions to rely on and NW cannot suggest `its early days and they don’t know about what NW have been up to` ... The truth we must face up to is they looked and have simply passed on buying our shares ….and they know more than all of us put together about their industry .
We have invested in and lived with a company that kept the PR`s coming and built a relationship with its retail based on that …. but now its stopped …so..
Conclusion (for me at least): The next PR has to be substantive, irrefutable, NO double entendres or I`M OUT … I am currently long 196k shares
maverick_1 Monday, 08/04/14 02:58:03 PM
Re: Basin Street Blues post# 16524
Post #
16545
of 244109
BASIN ST BLUES NWBO is institutionally BLIGHTED, ignored for the most part because/b]:
1. The two comparable public co's BLEW IT:
FOREMOST is DNDN's COLOSSAL FAILURE As the ONLY FDA immunotherapy cancer RX approved for Prostate Cancer (PC) AND the company really screwed up in terms of difficulty of application; has to be done by a special facility requiring trained personnel.More importantly they could not scale up mfg hence their pdtn costs went thru the roof. Also the FDA made them do another clinical that resulted in more delays. As this was happening both JNJ and MDVN got their PC drugs approved and since their pdt costs were lower did NOT run into serious reimbursement issues like DNDN. Many physicians went to JNJ & MDVN PC drugs because they cost less and those are pills vs that of DNDN. To add further insult to injury the CEO Mitch Gold WAY OVERFORECASTED demand and UNDERESTIMATED mfg costs (THE KEY)and PILED on DEBT. THREE STRIKES HERE. When he finally realized that all these key variables and the fact that JNJ & MDVN were beating him he finally did a MAJOR REVERSAL: TWO LARGE SCALE CUTBACKS! He resigned.THAT WAS ONLY TWO YEARS AGO so still fresh in Institutional Mindset IMHO And the CEO who followed him is LEAVING. When the stock was $5 not to long ago, I literally said to myself: it's going chapt 11 because who would want to buy it!The whole DNDN extreme roller coaster and MGT royally screwing up is the most PROMINENT reason why NWBO has low instl ownership
IMUC reported very disappointing PH2 results last Dec '13 and shares got slammed
.Institutions look just superficially on the surface of NWBO without clearly understanding the draconian differences that I underscored in some of my earlier posts: the LP interview describing the strategic differences of how NWBO does it vs DNDN 1)
Here's the post containing CEO Linda Powers views (4 yrs ago but still RELEVANT! of why NWBO is so vastly different than DNDN which institutions likely have not read or shelved till a DEFINITIVE announcement takes place:
maverick_1 Member Level Saturday, 07/12/14 11:18:54 AM
Re: longusa post# 15464
Post # of 16543
Elaboration on DNDN strategic flaws from CEO!
Much thanks LongUSA for yet another elucidation to ramify and reinforce/add to LP's interview.
IMHO time for a much needed refresher course.
Copied and pasted below in it's entirety:"straight from the horse's mouth" BioMedReports Interview:
maverick_1 Member Level Saturday, 07/12/14 11:18:54 AM
Re: longusa post# 15464
Post # of 16543
Elaboration on DNDN strategic flaws from CEO!
Much thanks LongUSA for yet another elucidation to ramify and reinforce/add to LP's interview.
IMHO time for a much needed refresher course.
Copied and pasted below in it's entirety:"straight from the horse's mouth" BioMedReports Interview:
WORTHY OF A BOOKMARK; STICKY as it is WHY NWBO HAS SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY as well as a fraction of the cost vs that of clearly dethroned and nearing extinction (DNDN's Provenge):
Cancer Vaccines: Northwest Biotherapeutics -vs- Dendreon
By M.E.Garza
Thursday, 15 July 2010 04:59
1
As a follow up to our interview with Northwest Biotherapeutics’ (NWBO.OB) Chairman of the Board of Linda Powers, this article focuses on the “hard differentiators” between NWBO’s immunotherapy vaccine platform and that of their closest competitor Dendreon Corporation (Nasdaq: DNDN).
Observers and investors of Northwest Biotherapeutics now believe the company’s DCVax® may be poised to surpass Dendreon’s product in the field of vaccine based cancer treatments. Speculators have begun to rush back to pick up shares of NWBO just as sector darling Dendreon Corp. (NASDAQ: DNDN) has lost 44% of its value after news that Dendreon can only make enough of their recently approved prostate cancer drug to treat about 2% of eligible patients.
First factor: The quality and characteristics of the antigens used by both companies in their vaccines
Dendreon uses PAP, while NWBO uses PSMA. Terminology aside, what matters here according to representatives at NWBO is Dendreon’s target antigen is not expressed on all prostrate cancers. They have to screen their patients to see the expression of their target. NWBO’s target antigen is expressed on all prostrate cancers. Additionally, with Dendreon’s target, the level of expression goes down as the cancer progresses. The level of expression on NWBO’s target goes up as the cancer progresses. As we learned from NWBO’s Chairman Linda Powers, if your target is getting harder and harder for the vaccine to find and hit as the cancer progresses, that’s not the characteristic you want in your target antigen.
Another difference in the target antigens is NWBO’s target is bound to the membrane of the tumor cell. “If the DCVax® hits our target,” explains Linda Powers, “it hits the cell for sure. Dendreon’s target is secreted by the cell, so while the target is close by, it is not necessarily bound to the cell in every instance. Antibodies can come along and glom onto to the target and not hit the cell itself, which means accuracy is an issue.
Second factor: The manufacturing and purity of the product
The active ingredient in both companies’ vaccines is dendritic cells. That is an active pharmaceutical ingredient, it’s the active agent that’s doing the job. But according to data provided by Northwest Biotherapeutics, the percentage composition of Dendreon’s product by the company’s own published material is 15% antigen presenting cells -- dendritic cells and others. According to NWBO’s published material, DCVax® is over 80% active ingredient. The official product release criteria are over 80% and Northwest Biotherapeutics’ platform usually hits over 90%, thus the active ingredient in NWBO’s vaccine is much more concentrated.
Third factor: How is the product administered to the patient
According to Powers, because there is such a low percentage of active ingredient in Dendreon’s vaccine, they have to deliver a huge volume, and the only way to do it is intravenous infusion, which is how they deliver Provenge to their patients.
This IV delivery can take over an hour. By contrast, because the active ingredient is so concentrated in the DCVax® vaccine, NWBO only needs to administer a tiny volume of “just a few drops” and it’s administered with a simple injection under the skin, like a flu shot or insulin shot.
As is the case with most medications, where and how a vaccine is administered has a big effect on how well the vaccine can do its job once it’s put into patient’s body. The human body has a blood circulatory system and a lymph circulatory system which is separate and parallel. Dendritic cells do their job in the lymph system, in the lymph nodes.
UNLESS mgt has previously demonstrated a successful record of succeeded in securing FDA approval and operating profitably with
expected revenues, or that mgt has sold a successful enterprise, biotech mgrs require at the very least some clear but DEFINITIVE
INDICATIONs (ie L Efficacy; GBM reimb.terms/revs from Germany) before taking on a position of an unknown like NWBO.
They don't need to be a hero as there is a lot of fish to fry in the biotech space.
THE ABOVE IS JUST ON THE FUNDAMENTAL SIDE
WHEN institutions have the above in place meaning some or all of the DEFINITIVE indications Announcement then...
How can I get SIZE w/o affecting price(typically only at a secondary)as they would normally like to avoid the open market since the float is thin.
If you'd like to sell suggest you contact Les Goldman who may set you up with a buyer: that would be good for EVERYONE IMHO!
GL Basin Stret Blues
PM me if needed.
Drugrunner re:
Yes but having 99% of your previous posts having $NWBO on blast doesn’t serve the company or the share price well at all.
Most in hindsight believe there to be a method to this madness that LP, LP, LES, et al have perpetuated these past few years
LESS IS MORE, as far as guidance and now we THINK we might be in the HEINZ red zone about to score.
Linda I believe plans to drop ALL THE NEWS in a very small window and dry all the naysayers and holler SCOREBOARD
jdheart101 Member Level Thursday, 08/08/19 10:30:31 AM
Re: None Post # 238927 of 244103
There she goes on her way to $0.11 and the big fat one for a hundred reverse split
jdheart101 Member Level Wednesday, 08/07/19 04:23:56 PM
Re: None Post # 238851 of 244103
huge reverse split coming that will wipe out all equity when it is shorted down to pennies but it will allow LP & co to continue on for years, kinda like the last one
jdheart101 Member Level Sunday, 08/14/16 02:43:40 PM
Re: None Post # 69839of 244103
NWBO HAS HIT BOTTOM!!!!! MARK IT
INSIDER SELLING is clearly NOT CONCLUSIVE: this is the BEST reasoning explained by eboomer2611:
On your other question - in terms of insider sales, I would say almost 90%+ it would be misleading to view it negatively. There are so many reasons for sales that retail investors just dont really understand as well (tax sales, 10b-1 plans, just normal diversification, liquidity need, etc). In my experience, if an insider truly felt the stock was going to head down or something bad was coming, most prudent Exec wouldnt sell because they wouldnt want the risk or stress that it might look like they were acting on information. Most Execs at mid to large companies are conservative / risk averse and they aren't trying to optimize stock sales and would rather hold than cause any risk on themselves by trying to cash out before bad stuff happens. The other consideration that I see frequently is that Execs are generally recommended to put 10b-1 plans in place by their legal advisors, financial advisors, etc. So in many instances even if they werent think of at least having a plan that takes some stock off over time, they would be highly advised to do so as best practices for them. So again I wouldnt read much into 10b-1 plans as it's just a best practice whether your bullish, bearish, or neutral and what prudent management does.
Keep in mind most Exec and Directors do have ownership requirements so they do need to hold at least a certain multiple of their compensation to ensure alignment (and that is why when it looks like some people sold everything chances are you aren't seeing their full equity considering unvested and milestone triggered, etc). In terms of suspending a 10b-1 plan. I do think you can suspend but I think it might be tricker to just restart it again so you have to be careful suspending it as you can only put a plan in place where you are in an open period with no issues and with a company like amrn that could be once or twice a year so if they suspend it may be very tough to restart it (as you can't just turn it back on when you want as that could be unfair and I think same thing with suspend - you may have to suspend when you are in an open period as well - not positive on that).
In terms of what would worry me. If all of a sudden JT sells a large part of his holdings (30% plus) at one time. I dont follow much of some of the other management as they have smaller positions and the value might be transformative for their lives that they are more inclinced to sell just out of prudence. While JT has so many shares, there really isnt a reason for him to sell a very signficant block as these smaller % sales gets him a lot of cash. If someone is cashing out $30M in one transaction you start to worry unless they have some huge need personally (which hard to imagine what is that big). I'd be more worried on Baker Bros making a large sale (it can be argued similalry they might not be bearish and just taking profits - but it would make me anxious because I assume their DD is better than mine)
The other item I'll mention that I think is unfair on insiders. We keep hearing "Oh look JT sold at the high again blah blah". In my experience, management that has signficant shares arent sitting there like us trying to get the best price or time their shares (if its a legit comopany and management). They value liquidity at a specific point of time versus what the exact price is. They are not losing sleep if they sold at 16 and its 20 a day later (honestly they are just happy to get a shot of liquidity and they have density of position so every sale is going to be good for them) The 10b-1 plans have set timing every month, quarter, or frequency, etc. They are not picking the day the price happens to be high or whatnot. That is all being managed outside of them. In addition, I can tell you no good exec that doesnt want to take enormous risk of serious trouble cares to create a buy out rumor ahead of a planned sale - that is way stupid. That is just dumb conspiracy theory and I think we all know that AMRN management is conservative. Also, management has their eggs in one basket often, but when the company does well they do REALLY well so unlike us investors that want / need as high of price as possible, in my experience insiders are not as senstitive to their sale price as we are and again just focused on getting liqudiity at regular intervals and care more about the long term trend of the stock the specific price they get on any sale.
jessellivermore Member Level Friday, 06/28/19 06:45:04 AM
Re: eboomer2611 post# 198863
Post #
198876
of 214201
eboomer...
Thanks for this very informative explanation/discussion of insider selling...This is very pertinent when it comes to biotechs because in many cases biotech management stock shares or options are a portion of their salary...Also management should not be criticized for not buying shares if they are receiving stock as a portion of their salary as selling shares to buy more shares generally does not make sense...
":>) JL/quote]
ELEMENTARY
Same OLE refrain: Another Chorus more?:
Basin Street Blues Member Level Monday, 08/05/19 04:24:54 AM
Re: flipper44 post# 238514
Post #
238525
of 244100
Flipper,
Take a look at this chart it shows Green for insider buys and Red for insider sells ..
So ordinarily if you were a HF who punted around in this stuff you`d look for two companies in the same sector as you`d get automatic protection from macro movements, so you`d sell NVCR and buy NWBO but you wouldn't because
if you even suggested to your compliance & risk department to buy an
OTC penny stock with zero transparency and a record for using shareholders like a U bend you'd get an immediate `NO` and more importantly your credibility as a PM would be in tatters.
Whatever the real driver behind radio silence from LP by definition it hasn't worked we are at 21 cents and still diluting .
So should anyone at NWBO tells you the silence plan is to `Scupper Mr Shorty ` at best they are being disingenuous and worst lying manipulators.
[Suppressed Image]
CalMustang with specific reference to:
WHY hasn't the OPTIONS Expert here NEVER forewarned of the impending DELUGE??
NONE of this has surprised me: saw it happen with NWBO back in Fall 2015!
Is there a MOLE here??
Today Technicals IMPROVED: Point + Figure Charting: TRIPLE Top BREAKOUT
See: Bottom Chart: https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/gallery.html?amrn
THIRD consecutive UP day with each day having comparable volume:
AMRN has not seen this since early July 2019! before it peaked out at $23-$24!
Sharp Chart:
Everything going along with yesterday's positive indicators are improving
Bollinger Bands over last three + trading days are narrowing with UPWARD Bias and at the top end!
Fast Stochastics is a good early indicator and DID experience a reversal from previous downward trend measured at 10 scale Aug 12 is NOW at 89!
AMRN might see a profit-taking pause like AMRN saw intraday Thursday at $17.10 (sell-off last FOUR hrs) so that will be short term resistance.
Good EARLY signs of beginning reversal? in ADX Plus.
DEATH Cross still intact as 50 DMA (remember because it is a Moving Average as long as stock price
increases it helps BUT takes time: UNLESS substantive AMRN Press Release)
So continues to IMPROVE!
CalMustang and JL
HAS it ever crossed your mind what I have felt eerily for months since the decline from $23:
WHY hasn't the OPTIONS Expert here NEVER forewarned of the impending DELUGE??
NONE of this has surprised me: saw it happen with NWBO back in Fall 2015!
Is there a MOLE here??
Came across this 4-5 yr old post of mine that has relevance here re Steve G:
with respect to my conclusion that Pyrrh(Steve Giardino in LI (really outside Syracuse, NY): good at spinning vs being home contractor) is the author behind V Phase V Research.
Colorectal Cancer is the SECOND most deadliest cancer: Follows WHY CEO Linda Powers targeted GBM FIRST (deadliest) and then late 2016 the Merck Sharp Dome PH2 colorectal cancer trial which IMHO is WHY SUB ROSA:
1) Merck has developed over the yearS an interest in NWBO re MRK's EVP in R&D Roger Perlmutter shaking hands with CEO Linda Powers at 2019 ASCO (visually verified fortunately by both AlphaPuppy and Photonic5 )and likely explains why
2)former MRK Keytruda Dr. Kevin Duffy is NOW onboard @ NWBO IMHO
The trial will be conducted as an investigator-initiated trial led by the University of Mainz, thereby substantially reducing the costs involved. NW Bio will provide the DCVax-L products and MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH will provide the Pembrolizumab. (MSD Sharp & Dohme is the operating name used by U.S.-based Merck & Co., Inc. outside the U.S. and Canada.) All of the parties contributed to and approved the novel trial design. (took two years to negotiate)
This trial will combine a broad spectrum personalized vaccine (DCVax®-L) with a highly targeted checkpoint inhibitor drug (Pembrolizumab). In contrast, most combination trials to date have combined two specifically targeted agents, with no broad spectrum agent included.
Immunotherapy for Colorectal Cancer Immunotherapy
Immunotherapy by Cancer Type
How is Immunotherapy Changing the Outlook for Patients with Colorectal Cancer?
Reviewed By: Dirk Jäger, M.D.
Colorectal cancer, referring to both colon cancer and rectal cancer, begins in the lining of the colon or rectum and has the ability to spread to other organ systems and lymph nodes. Over 95% of colorectal cancers are adenocarcinomas, a type of tumor that originates in the mucus-producing glands of the colon or rectum. Recently, the role of Lynch syndrome—an inheritable genetic disorder—in the development of colorectal has come to be recognized. It’s estimated that Lynch syndrome results in about 5,000 new cases of colorectal cancer year in the United States.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer type in the U.S. and the second most deadly. Globally, there are approximately 1.8 million cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed each year, along with over 900,000 deaths caused by the disease. In 2018, there were an estimated 150,000 new cases of colorectal cancer that were diagnosed and 52,000 colorectal cancer-related deaths in the United States alone.
Though overall death and incidence rates among both men and women have declined over the past two decades—largely due to screening tests that detect pre- and early stage disease—underuse of these screening tests means that only 40% of colorectal cancers are diagnosed as early stage, when the survival rate is highly favorable at 90%. As such, new treatments for colorectal cancer are urgently needed.
Colorectal Cancer Treatment Options
Traditional treatments for colorectal cancer include chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Though currently the most common treatment for colorectal cancer is surgical, there are several FDA-approved immunotherapy options.
Targeted Antibodies
Bevacizumab (Avastin®): a monoclonal antibody that targets the VEGF/VEGFR pathway and inhibits tumor blood vessel growth; approved for subsets of patients with advanced colorectal cancer, including as a first-line therapy
Cetuximab (Erbitux®): a monoclonal antibody that targets the EGFR pathway; approved for subsets of patients with advanced, EGFR-positive colorectal cancer, including as a first-line therapy
Panitumumab (Vectibix®): a monoclonal antibody that targets the EGFR pathway; approved for subsets of patients with advanced, EGFR-positive colorectal cancer
Ramucirumab (Cyramza®): a monoclonal antibody that targets the VEGF/VEGFR2 pathway and inhibits tumor blood vessel growth; approved for subsets of patients with advanced colorectal cancer, including as a first-line therapy
Checkpoint Inhibitors
Nivolumab (Opdivo®): a checkpoint inhibitor that targets the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway; approved for subsets of patients with advanced, MSI-high colorectal cancer
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®): a checkpoint inhibitor that targets the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway; approved for subsets of patients with advanced, MSI-high colorectal cancer
Many immunotherapies that show promise in addressing other types of cancer are in clinical testing for colorectal cancer.
CRI's Impact on Colorectal Cancer
The Cancer Research Institute has a long history of supporting scientific research for the advancement of colorectal cancer treatment, seeing many major breakthroughs that have made immunotherapy a promising approach for this disease.
One landmark study in 1998 by Haruo Ohtani, M.D., provided early evidence that immunotherapy treatments can act as a catalyst or enhancement for ideal immunologic conditions that could extend the lives of colorectal cancer patients.
The recent development of the Immunoscore tool, by Jérôme Galon, Ph.D., a new way to classify tumors, better predicts the rate of relapse and survival in patients with colorectal cancers, providing essential prognostic information that can then improve the confidence of clinical decisions and rational stratification of patient treatment.
Research by Dirk Jäger, M.D., a member of the CRI clinical trials network at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, elucidated how immune parameters correlate with prognosis in colorectal cancer.
In one study, former CRI postdoctoral fellow Eran Elinav, M.D., Ph.D., along with former CRI predoctoral scholar Till Strowig, Ph.D., showed that deficiencies in caspase-1, an enzyme involved in the activation and maturation of inflammatory immune molecules, resulted in enhanced tumor formation in a colitis-associated colorectal cancer model.
Explore CRI’s current funding for colorectal cancer research in our funding directory.
HARD KNOCKS for BRAIN CANCER Again: ONLY NWBO + DFFN left!:
Another project is Northwest Biotherapeutics’ controversial DCvax-L, though this company has been sitting on phase III data for years now, and the cancer vaccine seems unlikely to go anywhere.
Privately held(WRONG: :DFFN) Diffusion, meanwhile, continues to enrol inoperable glioblastoma subjects into its trial of trans sodium crocetinate. The company claims that this can re-oxygenate hypoxic tumour tissues, increasing susceptibility to radiation and chemotherapy. Results are some way off, according to clinical trial database entries.
Sojourner55 re:
Has anyone noticed an increased frequency of attack of vulnerabilities in your computer on IHUB lately, especially when you click on the next post? My antivirus/firewall has been blocking all these attacks.
Tocagen's stock plunges toward record low after late-stage trial of cancer treatment misses primary endpoint
By Tomi Kilgore
Published: Sep 12, 2019 8:17 am ET
Shares of Tocagen Inc. TOCA-77.97% plummeted 82% on heavy volume toward a record low, enough to pace all premarket decliners Thursday, after the gene company said a late-stage trial of its brain cancer treatment failed to meet its primary endpoint of survival compared with standard of care treatment. Trading volume of 975,000 shares ahead of the open was already more than triple the full-day average of about 253,000 shares. The company said all secondary endpoints of the phase 3 trial evaluating Toca 511 and Toca FC in patients with recurrent high grade glioma undergoing resection showed no meaningful difference between the arms of the trial. The company said further analysis of the trial data is underway. The stock is on track to open below the $1 mark, below the previous record low close of $3.00. It had already tumbled 49.1% year to date through Wednesday, while the S&P 500 [: spx] had gained 19.7%.
ggwpg re:
Scoreboard update: Maverick 2, FFS 0.
Tryn2re:
I wish Merck would buy 10% of NWBO for a paltry $1 billion....
Would do wonders for the stock price...:)
When one thoroughly reads the xconomy interview with Merck’s EVP Roger Perlmutter
one should understand why NWBO is the object of his discerning affections!
Re C_ART
Re Raise % Response Rate which I and some others pointed out years ago re ChkPtInhibitors
GBM success opens the floodgates
DIRECT in INOPERABLE Solid Tumors
Alphapuppy re:
Thanks Mav
I believe Guy at ASCO most resembled Roger Perlmutter.
Photonic also saw him. Hey photonic would you agree??
Alpha
He graduated from Reed College and earned his MD and PhD from Washington University in St. Louis in 1979. He did his clinical training in internal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and University of California, San Francisco.[1] In 1981, he joined the Division of Biology at the California Institute of Technology before joining the University of Washington in 1984 to join the medicine and biochemistry department. In 1989, he was the founding chair of the immunology department. His research focused on the role of tyrosine kinase signaling and its role in lymphocyte development and immunology.[2] During that time he was also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigator.[3][4]
In 1997, Perlmutter joined Merck Research Laboratories as the executive vice president of basic and preclinical research. At the time, Perlmutter was not chosen to replace Edward Scolnik as President of Merck Research Laboratories; that position went instead to Peter S. Kim, previously of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2001, Perlmutter left Merck and joined Amgen as the executive vice president and head of R&D from January 2001 to February 2012. In 2013, he replaced Peter S. Kim as the executive vice president and president of Merck Research Laboratories.[5]
He was the president of the American Association of Immunologists and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also serves on the boards of the Institute for Systems Biology and StemCells Inc.[6]
Worthwhile + fascinating Merck's Investor Day pdf:
https://s21.q4cdn.com/488056881/files/doc_downloads/2019/06/Investor-Day-Presentation.pdf
BTW I also listened to the podcast. from Merck's website.
ALPHAPUPPY: Do scan those pictures EXTREME right to see IF any of Merck's Executives picture you recognize from your ASCO 2019 encounter.
FWIW: Death Cross and DIVERGENCES:
https://www.google.com/search?q=death+cross+%2B+divergences&oq=death+cross+%2B+divergences&aqs=chrome..69i57.19524j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Netflix: What the Charts Say Is in Store for the Stock ...
https://realmoney.thestreet.com › Investing › Stocks
4 days ago - ... average line falling below the 200-day line for a dead or death cross. ... The trend-following Moving Average Convergence Divergence :
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/netflix-what-the-charts-say-is-in-store-for-the-stock-15080664
READ the above
NFLX facing competitive threats streaming :from
AMZN;
DIS;
ROKU
Hulu
TTWO
ATT(HBO)
and contrast the above with AMRN lead and dominance with a patent moat etc.
THEN look at AMRN chart of DIVERGENCES from Death Cross and compare with NFLX's Death Cross.
My historical FAVORITE in terms of MAXIMIZING shareholder return(versus a Buyout: need to think of mitigating CEO Linda Powers TAX for her and shareholders;; wanting independence yet involvement with what partner offers along with her legacy of seeing it through those TWICE ASHES for the GLORY days vs simple buyout (short media attention vs ELONGATION ETC ETC ) is
Genentech/Hoffman La Roche as profiled here by Wharton's Knowledge below.
Here were TWO Drug GIANTS: Genentech and Hoffman La Roche
Whereas for NWBO:
IF topline for GBM successful,
DIRECT much BIGGER Potential
EQUALS
ALL the INHERIT ingredients of a coming Drug Giant in NWBO!
WAY EARLY but worth considering:" AHEAD of the Curve"
Harvard Business Review:
Roche's Acquisition of Genentech
by Carliss Y. Baldwin, Bo Becker and Vincent Marie Dessain
Abstract
Franz Humer, CEO of the Roche Group, must decide whether to mount a hostile tender offer for the publicly-owned shares of Roche's biotechnology subsidiary, Genentech. The case provides opportunities to analyze Roche's strategy with respect to Genentech, the pros and cons of merging the two companies with different cultures, the value of Genentech, and the tactics of a hostile tender offer.
Keywords: Mergers and Acquisitions; Business Subsidiaries; Negotiation Offer; Organizational Culture; Corporate Strategy; Biotechnology Industry; Pharmaceutical Industry; Switzerland
Format: Print 32 pages EDUCATORS PURCHASE
Citation:
Baldwin, Carliss Y., Bo Becker, and Vincent Marie Dessain. "Roche's Acquisition of Genentech." Harvard Business School Case 210-040, February 2010. (Revised September 2011.)
Once pharmaceutical giant Roche Holding decided to acquire full ownership of biotech firm Genentech, leadership at Roche knew there was no going back. Although the two companies had been working together in some form since the 1980s, and Roche had owned a controlling stake in Genentech since 1990, executives at the Swiss pharma company realized that a failed takeover would permanently poison any future dealings between the two. “If we had gone down the path of increasing the ownership stake … it would have been different,” Steve Krognes, a former Roche executive who is now senior vice president and CFO of Genentech, said during a recent presentation at Wharton San Francisco. “But once the decision was made that we were going to go for full acquisition, and that was announced publicly, there was no way back.”
On March 12, 2009, Roche announced a $46.8 billion deal to buy South San Francisco, Calif.-based Genentech. But the path to a merged Roche and Genentech was far from smooth. For one thing, the deal played out as Wall Street was thrown into panic, and the economy into turmoil, by a historic recession. For another, Roche went into the deal with the goal of preserving the innovative, entrepreneurial culture that had transformed Genentech from a start-up to a standout, one that had developed Roche’s three best-selling products — the cancer drugs Avastin, Herceptin and Rituxan.
In addition, the first stages of the merger attempt in late 2008 and early 2009 caused hostilities on both sides, sparking a war over how much Roche would pay for each remaining share of Genentech. Furthermore, the buyer was charged with combining the two companies in a way that would not cause the biotech company’s scientists to head for the door. Roche realized that it needed more than just Genentech’s drugs; the firm also wanted to inject the biotech firm’s DNA into its corporate culture.
“When you acquire a company as successful and as good as Genentech, a lot of what you acquire is walking on two feet, and you better be mindful that you want to keep that talent, and keep them happy and engaged,” Krognes noted. “Building on what made Genentech great [was] the key principle for Roche management.”
The merger came together as two other drug giants were launching takeover bids of their own. Pfizer bought Wyeth for $68 billion in 2009, while Merck paid $41 billion to acquire Schering-Plough. More recently, French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis made public on August 29 of this year its $18.5 billion bid to acquire Genzyme, a Cambridge, Mass.-based biotech firm. Despite an uneven industry track record for similar mergers, Roche, Pfizer and Merck pursued the deals — and Sanofi is chasing after Genzyme — in an effort to diversify before facing the expiration of patents on a number of their blockbuster drugs. Once the protection offered by the patents is gone, generic companies are free to begin competing for the business created by the products.
‘A Waste of Money’
The relationship between Roche and Genentech began with research collaborations in the 1980s. At the time, Genentech — founded in 1976 — was a relatively young company that mostly focused on R&D of new products. Basel, Switzerland-based Roche was founded in 1896 and had been a presence in the United States since 1905. The Swiss firm employed more than 78,000 people at the time of its takeover bid in 2008, while Genentech employed about 11,000. Genentech ended 2008 with a net income of more than $3.6 billion, versus $9.33 billion for Roche. Genentech’s net income for 2008 increased 14% over the previous year, while Roche experienced a 5% drop.
When Roche leadership bought 56% of Genentech for $2.1 billion in 1990, “it was a highly controversial move back in Switzerland,” according to Krognes. “A lot of people thought it was a waste of money [to buy] a young biotechnology company for $2 billion. But there were a couple of people at the top of the company [who said] … ‘This is the future of [Roche].'”
As the biotech firm’s product lines began to take hold in the market, Genentech’s growth formed a “hockey stick” pattern, where revenue increased rapidly, creating almost vertical upward growth. “I think probably not too many companies can really show something like this,” Krognes said. “[Genentech is] really just a fabulous success, one that was based on some truly innovative and outstanding medicines that have changed lives for a lot of people around the world.”
Success also changed Roche’s view of its longtime partner. “I don’t want to say it’s all about dollars, but I think it’s quite interesting to see that development and think about … how Genentech changed over those years,” Krognes stated. In the 1990s, the company was all about R&D; more than half of its employees were in the R&D area. By 2008, 75% of Genentech employees were in manufacturing or commercial or administrative — “and that impacted our partnership in many ways,” he noted.
The two companies were competing for the same deals and the same customers. As an example, Krognes pointed to a situation that was brewing in 2007-2008 in which Roche and Genentech went head-to-head in the U.S. market for rheumatoid arthritis drugs. “[Cash flows] were also a key driver in this analysis,” Krognes noted. “The cash generation that … revenues [like Genentech’s] bring is quite impressive when you have 40%+ margins. You sit there as the majority shareholder and say, ‘I don’t have access to that cash. What are they going to do with it?'”
Partners on Paper
Though partners on paper, Genentech’s day-to-day operations were fully independent, with no significant collaboration between the two companies, Krognes said. In addition, it was becoming clear to Roche leadership that they were working against a time clock. An agreement that allowed Roche first rights to market Genentech drugs outside the U.S. was set to end in 2015. According to Krognes, the pharma company expected that, when the time came for renegotiation, Genentech would “take Roche to the cleaners,” or even decide to sell the drugs overseas on its own.
The drug giant also knew that Genentech’s scientists were the brains behind Roche’s best-selling drugs, even as product development was stagnant at Roche’s U.S. headquarters in Nutley, N.J. “The Roche business in the U.S., frankly, was not doing that well. Nutley has a long and lustrous history, and a lot of great research has come [from there]. But Nutley had not produced anything for a long time,” Krognes stated. “The U.S. represents 40% of the world market. If you have ambitions to be a leader in this industry, not to have a good presence in the U.S. is not acceptable.”
All of those factors led Roche executives to begin considering how to create a more advantageous business model with Genentech. A full acquisition of the biotech firm was only one of the options they considered. The pharma company’s hands-off approach to Genentech extended to the biotech firm’s board of directors, where, by choice, Roche members were a minority. “[Roche] could obviously reverse that on short notice,” Krognes pointed out. “[But] that certainly wouldn’t have helped in terms of collaboration. We concluded that if you go that route, you really have to think a step further…. Obviously you replace the management team. But then you sit back and say … ‘How is that [upheaval] going to be perceived by the [stock] market?'”
Increasing Roche’s percentage ownership stake was also an option. The company proposed such a move to Genentech during the second half of 2007, Krognes said, but the biotech firm declined to support it. Roche could have bought the shares in the open market, “but when you are a 60% shareholder, every single share you buy you have to register. And you have to explain what your intentions are.”
That left Roche with the decision to pursue a full takeover — without the alternative of privately negotiating a deal with Genentech’s management because, as Krognes noted, “if they already came to the conclusion that, ‘We don’t want to sell another 5%-10% to Roche,’ then what’s the likelihood that they are going to say ‘Oh, great! Now you want 100%. That’s fantastic. Let’s do it together.'”
On July 21, 2008, Roche went public with an offer of $43.7 billion, or $89 a share, for the 44% of Genentech that it did not own. Genentech didn’t become aware of Roche’s plans until a few hours before it hit the news, in a phone call from Roche chairman Franz Humer to then Genentech CEO Arthur Levinson. “The offer came out and [Genentech’s] share price went up from the low $80s to approximately $94,” according to Krognes.
At the time, analysts believed that the jump in share price was a sign that Roche would have to pay more than it was offering to acquire full ownership. And industry observers wondered why the Swiss company would risk unraveling a partnership that had worked well for nearly 20 years, despite the unlikely coupling of Genentech’s “necktie optional” culture with Roche’s more traditional buttoned-down atmosphere. Patient advocates were worried too, with several telling The Wall Street Journal that they feared the merger would be the end of a unique relationship in the industry in which Genentech officials regularly met with, and sought feedback from, activists and patient groups.
A special committee formed of three independent Genentech board members considered Roche’s first offer. About a month later, they ultimately rejected it as a substantial undervaluation of the biotech firm. The response was not unexpected, Krognes noted, but it was a setback for Roche, which had reason to get the deal completed quickly. Results of a clinical trial testing the effectiveness of Avastin as a treatment for early-stage colon cancer were expected in April 2009; if the feedback was positive, Genentech’s share price could jump dramatically and put the deal out of Roche’s reach financially. “It was critically important to get the deal done before those results got out, because if it had been positive, the deal would have been gone,” Krognes noted. “If it had been negative — which it was — we could absorb it.”
A Changing World
An already complicated situation became even more fraught on September 15, 2008 when, about a month after Genentech rejected Roche’s initial offer, Lehman Brothers filed the largest Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in U.S. history. The news created a ripple effect that sent financial markets reeling and the economy lurching into a downward spiral. Suddenly, the pharma company’s balance sheet for financing the merger looked more uncertain.
Then came a counter bid from Genentech — $112 a share.
“Banks were going bankrupt and bankers were more worried about, ‘Do I have a job?’ … than doing what they were supposed to do” — keep a finger on the pulse and understand the market,” Krognes stated. “The bankers just simply had no idea … as to our ability to raise this capital. The commitments in terms of bridge financing were coming down, down, down. The price was going up, up, up.”
Typically, companies finance mergers by securing temporary bank loans prior to raising capital. But the economic turmoil meant that many banks weren’t in the position to lend. Roche made the unusual move in early 2009 of going to the bond market before its merger was a sure thing. At the same time, Pfizer was doing the same, even though the Wyeth deal had yet to close. Merck would eventually pursue a similar strategy to acquire Schering-Plough, taking advantage of investors’ willingness to lend to companies dealing in products seen as “recession-resistant.” Roche sold $16 billion in bonds to fund its takeover of Genentech — generating a pile of cash and interest payments that the company would be stuck with if it couldn’t close the deal.
Roche and Genentech were still nowhere near an agreement. So Roche decided to stop negotiating.
On January 30, 2009, the pharma company began a hostile bid, going directly to Genentech’s shareholders with an offer of $86.50 a share — 3% lower than its initial offer from July. “I think it was a big shock in the market, and certainly the investors were not happy at all,” Krognes acknowledged. “We got a lot of flak for that one. But it was, I think, a good move in that you show some price discipline.”
Shareholders, meanwhile, shunned the new offer, and analysts doubted that Roche would collect enough shares to complete the deal. In addition, observers became increasingly concerned that the argumentative nature of the process might alienate Genentech scientists and management and cause them to leave the company rather than work at a firm wholly owned by Roche.
Genentech urged shareholders to reject Roche’s proposal. Leaders at the biotech firm argued at a March 2009 meeting with investors that the company was worth far more than $86.50 per share, noting its history of success and flourishing drug development pipeline. Meanwhile, Krognes and three other Roche executives went on the road to visit all of the biotech firm’s top investors in an effort to come up with a price that would convince shareholders to tender the necessary 50% of the total 440 million shares they controlled. The Roche executives ended the trip in San Francisco where they went for a walk on the Embarcadero and decided to raise Roche’s asking price to $93 a share, Krognes said. “Hostile deals become friendly in the end, right? And it was friendly for the last week, when we negotiated a share purchase agreement and a lot of important terms in that merger agreement.”
Although some analysts argued that the new offer was still not a fair reflection of Genentech’s long-term value, they also noted that the volatile market made the offer more attractive than it would have been otherwise. The price was ultimately increased to $95 a share, with Roche agreeing on March 12, 2009, to acquire the remaining portion of Genentech for $46.8 billion. Although the Swiss company had scaled a major hurdle toward gaining income and innovation from Genentech, leadership still faced the potentially thorny process of creating a unified firm.
Combining Cultures
In trying to integrate the two companies, the watchword for Roche was “speed, speed, speed,” Krognes noted. Roche also wanted to ensure that it would absorb some of what made the biotech firm such a success.
Several Genentech veterans were brought on board in key roles at the combined company, although others, including CEO Levinson and product development head Susan Desmond-Hellmann, ultimately parted ways with Roche. Some Roche management positions moved to the U.S. from company headquarters in Switzerland. “There are always some decisions where you have two people and you have to select one,” Krognes pointed out. “[We made] a commitment to select the best of both [companies]. The best person gets the job.”
The headquarters of Roche’s commercial operations in the U.S. were shifted from Nutley, N.J., to Genentech’s offices in South San Francisco, Calif. A Roche facility in Palo Alto, Calif., was shut down and its operations were also relocated to Genentech. The shifts caused about 600 job cuts at Roche operations in New Jersey.
“The feeling [there] was that, ‘You guys in the management team are in love with Genentech and you don’t care about us anymore.’ Many people felt slighted and very unhappy about some of these decisions,” Krognes noted. “We’re closing Palo Alto. We have gone from 950 people to about 100 people today and we’re in the process of selling that site. In Nutley, you go from the headquarters to an R&D center of excellence. An R&D center of excellence is great but it’s not the same — certainly not for those people who were not in R&D.”
Manufacturing and commercial operations for the two companies have been combined, but Genentech’s research approach has been adopted across the merged firm. Veteran Genentech scientist Richard Scheller is in charge of the combined company’s early research and development, and reports directly to Roche CEO Severin Schwan, as opposed to Roche’s head of R&D.
“The idea is really that we are together now, so let’s pick the best people. Let’s pick the best projects. Let’s pick the best strategy and do this together,” Krognes added. “That’s an important part of making sure this investment is a good investment because, as I said a few times, most of the value walks on two feet. That means if value is going to be created in the future, you’ve got to make sure that you keep that innovative environment.”
To preclude posts on Biotech Partnership here is some food for thought:
[The question of whether to partner with another company is critical to the long-term development of a biotech. Nonetheless, it can be easy for a small company to underestimate the resources it needs to put into a successful collaboration. Here, we’ll go over some expert advice on what to do and what not to do to set up a partnership, keep it up and running and make it successful.
Partnering with big pharma or another biotech can bring many benefits to a small biotech company. Beyond a flow of cash, the right partners can increase the chances of success of a development program and reduce the time it takes.
“I think partnerships bring a lot of good things, the cash is really important, the validation, learning from big pharma – they have got a lot to teach biotech,” noted Edwin Moses, CEO of Ablynx, at a recent Labiotech Refresh event.
I asked experts in the biotech industry to give us their advice for biotechs seeking to enter and maintain successful partnerships. This is what they had to say!
1. Think About What You Want to Accomplish
“Rather than just looking for someone who can help you, approach it from a point of mutual benefit,” recommends Julia Schoelermann, Associate Director of Business Development & Partnering at BerGenBio, which partnered with Merck & Co. last year to test their cancer drugs in combination.
To find mutually beneficial partnerships, biotechs need to consider the stage of development their technology is at and whether it can contribute to a big pharma company’s pipeline.
“If you are at the preclinical stage, you may change the technology, the indication, or the formulation, and maybe the way to deliver the product is not defined yet,” explains Georges Rawadi, CEO of LNC Therapeutics and former VP of Business Development & IP at Celyad, which signed a €82M license agreement with Novartis last year.
Biotechs interested in a preclinical partnership should take into consideration is that a drug in preclinical development may be effective in indications for which it has not been tested yet.
“The wealth of applications can also still be undefined at this time,” says Rawadi. As a result, biotechs may need to change the goals of their partnership as the drug is being developed.
Once you enter the clinic, however, a drug’s properties have been investigated more extensively and the goals of a partnership are more defined. This allows collaborating companies to focus on funding clinical trials, seeking regulatory approval and marketing a drug.
“It comes to more commercial terms discussions versus what you would do if there is an unexpected innovation that happens,” adds Rawadi.
2. Nurture a Collaborative Relationship
Scientists are trained to look for hard, empirical data to back-up innovative ideas. When moving into the business world, however, they also have to nurture trusting relationships with potential collaborators.
“Where science is all about data and facts, in business it is much more about the people and good data becomes table stakes,” says Schoelermann.
“What I try to do before going into a meeting is, not only focus on my pitch, but think through how I can engage with the delegates on a personal level, and I try to consciously engage a more playful side,” Schoelermann elaborates. “At the end of the day, people won’t remember each detail, but they will remember how you made them feel.”
Moreover, Schoelermann recommends you should not “insist that your drug is the best thing since sliced bread, because at the end of the day it comes down to clinical trials and effectiveness.”
The 7 Do’s and Don’ts of Biotech Partnerships
3. Be Prepared for Risk-Taking
Biotech is by its nature a dynamic industry — we don’t know which treatments will become breakthroughs and which ones will fail until they are tested in patients. Companies from different parts of the globe deal with these uncertainties in different ways. To move ahead in this challenging environment, European and American biotechs could learn a thing or two from each other.
“The only question the US investors had was ‘are you hiring enough sales people? Why don’t you hire more? Why aren’t you more aggressive in doing that?’,” Moses outlined at a recent Refresh event. “They accept the binary nature of biotech and they want to plan for success. Here [in Europe] everyone is a bit more cautious, which really is not the way to develop biotech.”
While European biotechs could benefit from being more open to risk-taking, it’s not a one-way ticket to get treatments to work.
“Americans are very optimistic, they are very forward-looking, they like risk-taking,” says Rawadi. “ But if they are positive or overly optimistic, it doesn’t mean that everything goes well. So you need to be careful about that.”
4. Don’t Let Language Barriers Get in the Way
Partnering with an Asian collaborator can bring significant benefits to small biotechs given the large number of patients available to recruit for clinical trials. China, for one, is providing incentives for foreign biotechs to enter their market, such as accepting overseas clinical data and making it easier for young companies to get listed in Chinese stock markets.
But while it may be the norm for most biotech companies in the West to use English, this is not always the case with more international partners.
“There are really few European biotechs that speak Chinese, or Japanese, or Korean. And not all employees at your Asian partner are necessarily fluent in English,” Rawadi comments. “So you need to be aware of that to communicate to them in a very simple, clear and easy way to understand, and also go visit them on a regular basis to establish very good relationships and trust.”
“You know, I do think it’s still not a very well known territory for a lot of companies,” Schoelermann explains. “Particularly for a smaller company it would take a lot of effort to open possibilities in such a new geography.”
The 7 Do’s and Don’ts of Biotech Partnerships
5. You Don’t Always Have to Say Yes
Timing is vital for a biotech company to consider when entering into a partnership. Sometimes holding off leads to greater gains in the long run.
For example, last year in January Ablynx rejected an initial bid made by Novo Nordisk to acquire the company for €2.7Bn in total. By saying ‘no’ at first, Ablynx raised the value of their shares, and later that month it was acquired by Sanofi for €3.9Bn.
“Novo were particularly interested in our lead compound. They were a little bit interested in the platform itself, but not entirely sure what to do about some of our other programs,” says Moses.
As he explained, having a genuine interest in a company’s technology can go a long way towards establishing a trusting partnership that ends successfully.
“I think the exciting thing about Sanofi was they looked at the platform in great detail and they are very interested in an awful lot of what we are doing. It was a big thing that we had already worked together so a trust had been built up with the partners.”
6. Don’t Underestimate the Resources You Need
Managing a partnership is perhaps one of the greatest challenges aspiring biotech entrepreneurs will face, and dedicating resources specifically to the partnership can be instrumental in its success. Hiring an external consultant could help a biotech navigate the inevitable bumps that come along the road.
When looking for an external consultant, Rawadi recommends that biotechs look for someone with “a scientific background to understand the technology, the business, and also people that have very good interpersonal relationships, as well as a problem-solving mindset.”
“An arrogant attitude is to be avoided,” adds Rawadi. “You need to interact with different cultures, to basically deal with anyone around the planet.”
An external consultant should help a biotech build a partnership that is mutually beneficial. A scientific background combined with an approachable personality are essential for a consultant to help a biotech build long-term trusting relationships with their partners.
The 7 Do’s and Don’ts of Biotech Partnerships
7. Keep a Positive Outlook
Being at the helm of a biotech partnership is not easy, and keeping a positive mindset can help bring you through challenging times.
“You have to be optimistic. Be patient, think about things, listen to people’s council, but then as a CEO of a company you have to make the decision,” Moses says. “You will get patted on the back when things go well and hit on the head when things don’t go so well. So you have to be quite strong and plan a way ahead.”
And don’t forget to thank the people who helped bring your biotech to where it is today.“Follow up and be gracious and thank people for taking you in,” emphasizes Schoelermann. “Don’t only engage with people when you want something from them.”
Entering into a partnership can have many benefits for biotechs, from combining different technologies into more effective treatments to bringing drugs to patients more quickly. Before rushing into a collaboration, however, biotech leaders should consider what they hope to accomplish in a partnership, what they can offer to their partner, and the resources they would need to put into a successful collaboration.
https://labiotech.eu/tops/biotech-partnerships-dos-donts/
Labiotech.eu is the leading digital media covering the European Biotech industry. Over 150,000 monthly visitors use it to keep an eye on the business and innovations in biotechnology. Hope you'll enjoy reading our stories!
"We are building the Next Generation of Digital Media for Biotech"
Sojourner55 re:
Next position to be filled - CFO / VP Finance? Top management complete.
The average yearly salary of a chief financial officer (CFO) can vary based on a number of factors, but the median compensation for a CFO in the U.S. as of April 2019 was $371,548 per year, according to Salary.com.May 4, 2019
Update on Ph2 NWBO Program Outreach repartee: on Ihub Biotech Values
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151023130
maverick_1 Monday, 09/09/19 04:18:56 PM
Re: biotech_researcher post# 226117
Post # 226126 of 226138
biotech researcher re:
I wouldn’t touch any company with a ten foot pole that has Glioblastoma as their lead target. The world is littered with glioblastoma trial failures.
GTSM: They apparently are a LARGE OTC mkt makr: as they trade 8900+ securities!:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otc-link/broker-dealer-directory/GTSM
Might be a stretch but may relate to symbolizing to rich Taiwanese stock players the following:
Understanding the Taiwan OTC Exchange (TWO)?
The Taipei Exchange (TPEx),[color=red] formerly the Gre Tai Securities Market (GTSM), is the foundation dedicated to serving over-the-counter (OTC) bond trading in Taiwan.[/color] It was established in November 1994. The exchange's headquarters are located in the Zhongzheng District of Taipei City. In February 2015, the Gre Tai Securities Market changed its name to the Taipei Exchange
GoodGuyBill re:
Maverick_1, Can you expound on your point, I'm not clear on what you are saying. Excuse my ignorance here.
Merck is studying an investigational treatment through our Keynote Oncology Clinical Trials
Our Keynote Oncology Clinical Trials are studying a way to treat cancer through immunotherapy – an approach that may help the body’s immune system fight cancer. The investigational immunotherapy used in the Keynote Oncology Clinical Trials is called pembrolizumab (MK-3475).
Pembrolizumab has been FDA-approved for use in certain types of cancer.
Since many clinical trials involve new drugs or test drugs in new ways, there are risks associated with participation. It is important that patients understand these risks before agreeing to participate. The possible benefits and risks should be discussed with a doctor.
HOW PEMBROLIZUMAB WORKS
Immunotherapy is a type of therapy that may help the body’s immune system attack cancer cells. The investigational immunotherapy being studied is called pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab blocks the interaction of PD-1 with another protein called PD-L1, which is sometimes found on tumor cells. Blocking this interaction may help the immune system recognize certain tumors and attack them.
Merck has investigational clinical trials under way or planned in more than 30 types of cancer. We are currently studying the following:
Urinary Tract Cancer
Breast Cancer
Gastric Cancer
Head and Neck Cancer
Hematology
Skin Cancer
Lung Cancer
Female Reproductive System Cancer
Pediatric
Colorectal Cancer YOU SHOULD RECALL CEO Linda Powers citing this recently AND https://nwbio.com/nw-bio-announces-phase-ii-clinical-trial-program-combining-dcvax-l-and-pembrolizumab-keytruda-for-colorectal-cancer/: perhaps that BEGAN MRK's interest leading to Dr. Kevin Duff joining NWBO.....................
ALSO in June 2019 PFE acquires Array Bio for $11.4 bln for it's colorectal cancer work:Pfizer launches an $11.4bn bid for the prolific originator of small molecules, and predicts blockbuster sales in colorectal cancer to help justify the price. https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/deals/rich-recognition-finally-arrives-arraysophageal Cancer
Liver Cancer
As well as other types of cancer
Select cancer type below:
SHOW ALL BLADDER CANCER BREAST CANCER CERVICAL CANCER GASTRIC CANCER
BLADDER CANCER
A PHASE II, UNBLINDED OPEN-LABEL, CLINICAL TRIAL TO STUDY THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PEMBROLIZUMAB (MK-3475) IN SUBJECTS WITH HIGH RISK NON-MUSCLE INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER (NMIBC) UNRESPONSIVE TO BACILLUS CALMETTE-GUERIN (BCG) THERAPY (MK-3475 057)
GASTRIC CANCER
A PHASE III, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, CLINICAL TRIAL OF PEMBROLIZUMAB (MK-3475) PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY (XP OR FP) VERSUS PLACEBO PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY (XP OR FP) AS NEOADJUVANT/ADJUVANT TREATMENT FOR SUBJECTS WITH GASTRIC AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION (GEJ) CANCER (MK-3475-585)
BLADDER CANCER
A PHASE III, RANDOMIZED, COMPARATOR-CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL TO STUDY THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PEMBROLIZUMAB (MK-3475) IN COMBINATION WITH BACILLUS CALMETTE-GUERIN (BCG) IN PARTICIPANTS WITH HIGH-RISK NON-MUSCLE INVASIVE BLADDER CANCER (HRNMIBC) THAT IS PERSISTENT OR RECURRENT FOLLOWING BCG INDUCTION (MK-3475 676)
BREAST CANCER
A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PHASE III STUDY OF PEMBROLIZUMAB VERSUS PLACEBO IN COMBINATION WITH NEOADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY AND ADJUVANT ENDOCRINE THERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF HIGH-RISK EARLY-STAGE ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE, HUMAN EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2-NEGATIVE (ER+/HER2–) BREAST CANCER (MK-3475 756)
GASTRIC CANCER
A PHASE III, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND TRIAL COMPARING TRASTUZUMAB PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY AND PEMBROLIZUMAB WITH TRASTUZUMAB PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY AND PLACEBO AS FIRST-LINE TREATMENT IN PARTICIPANTS WITH HER2 POSITIVE ADVANCED GASTRIC OR GASTROESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION ADENOCARCINOMA (MK-3475 811)
CERVICAL CANCER
A PHASE III RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL OF PEMBROLIZUMAB (MK-3475) PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY VERSUS CHEMOTHERAPY PLUS PLACEBO FOR THE FIRST-LINE TREATMENT OF PERSISTENT, RECURRENT, OR METASTATIC CERVICAL CANCER (MK-3475 826)
GASTRIC CANCER
A PHASE III, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND CLINICAL STUDY OF PEMBROLIZUMAB (MK-3475) PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY VERSUS PLACEBO PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY AS FIRST-LINE TREATMENT IN PARTICIPANTS WITH HER2 NEGATIVE, PREVIOUSLY UNTREATED, UNRESECTABLE OR METASTATIC GASTRIC OR GASTROESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION ADENOCARCINOMA (MK-3475859)
Mkt Mkt GTSM still on Bid after absorbing 300,000 shs in last hour
Who is market maker Gtsm?
The custody services are entrusted to the two banks by Taiwan Depository & Clearing Corp. Bank of Taiwan is the largest lender in Taiwan, and First Bank is the flagship banking arm of First Financial Holding Co. The GTSM said the two market makers own no less than 2,000 Taiwan tael (75 kilograms) of gold reserves.Dec 26, 2014
Taiwan News › tw › news
FlyFishingtocks: re:
AMRN suffered another BIG technical blow today - - a technical Death Cross
[
FlyFishingStocks Monday, 09/02/19 04:55:16 PM
Re: maverick_1 post# 212213
Post #
212229
of 213340
You must be looking at the chart upside down?
Quote:
Clearly AMRN has established an interim bottom from a precipitous drop from $23 and has a short term constructive net accumulation with improving technical indicators like MACD, Fast Stochastic, Money Flow as it is filling in that Down Gap from $17.
Hopefully there is some ground breaking AMRN announcement after Labor Day!
AMRN’s technical indicators like ADX Plus needs to IMPROVE and
break that sharp interim decline line,
AND penetrate above $18 (50/200 DMA; GOLDEN CROSS !)
GOLDEN CROSS? Did you mean to say DEATH CROSS!?
[Suppressed Image]
IMO, currently, there is nothing bullish on this chart. Even worse on the monthly and weekly. Any rally attempt has been met with heavier selling at resistance.
One thing I've noticed over the years is when the volume returns after Labor day, it magnifies the current trend (down in the case of AMRN).
maverick_1 Monday, 09/02/19 07:10:22 PM
Re: FlyFishingStocks post# 212229
Post #
212235
of 213341
FlyFishing re :
Quote:
your reading this upside down.... Death Cross!
My post said:
Quote:
AND penetrate above $18 (50/200 DMA; GOLDEN CROSS !)
Clearly Neither you NOR I am right!
Reread and it’s is a supposition based on FUTURE short term price movements!
CONDITIONED on the premise that AMRN 50 DMA penetrates upward and remains ABOVE
the 200 DMA is then a GOLDEN CROSS:
https://www.google.com/search?q=golden%20cross%20stock
Your DEATH CROSS:
https://www.google.com/search?q=death%20cross%20stock
WHY jump the gun with your response.
NOT interested in butting heads as I do NOT profess to
be an expert at this: but
I have encountered both a Golden and a Death Cross!
DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS
FlyFishingStocks Monday, 09/02/19 08:31:30 PM
Re: maverick_1 post# 212235
Post # 212243 of 213342
No problem.... I agree. I was just pointing out that there is no way a golden cross can occur if the 50 has not first descended below the 200 (death cross; the 50 is above the 200 and both are sloping down - 50 faster than the 200)
Quote:
Reread and it’s is a supposition based on FUTURE short term price movements!
CONDITIONED on the premise that AMRN 50 DMA penetrates upward and remains ABOVE
the 200 DMA is then a GOLDEN CROSS:
Respond | No replies
biotech researcher re:
I wouldn’t touch any company with a ten foot pole that has Glioblastoma as their lead target. The world is littered with glioblastoma trial failures.
What’s one stock that you’re particularly excited about?
Novocure [NVCR], which makes a medical device for cancer. It started off in glioblastoma, which is a type of brain cancer. You have to shave your head and put this product on it, and it emits electromagnetic fields. The whole world was skeptical of this thing. It sounded like science fiction. Then they ran a huge randomized clinical trial, and they beat the standard of care. There was longer survival by a few months of patients who wore this. So it hit the market, and then it had some uptake. It does a few hundred million in sales. They just got approved for mesothelioma, where you wear the device on your chest.
I looked at it, and I thought, what are the odds electromagnetic fields—if they benefit you in both brain cancer and mesothelioma—that they’re going to benefit you in a whole bunch of other cancers? It works in two cancers. I bet it works in more. I don’t know if it will be three or four or five or 10. The nice thing is, we’re going to find out, because they have three readouts in the next two years in lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and ovarian cancer. And they’re late-phase trial readouts. We have a moderate-sized position. I think a lot of people are going to look at each other and say, wow, maybe we need to really take a look at this.
What happens in biotech investing is, if you can find things that are kind of off the radar, people don’t really understand them. Who covers this stock? Is it biotech analysts or medtech analysts? It’s a hodgepodge. No one really knows which area it fits in. People don’t know how to look at it, so in a world where there’s a million other investment opportunities, people have kind of looked at other things. And I really like that recipe.
Zeif Bakri left medicine in 2005, working briefly at Merrill Lynch in London before joining Cowen & Co. in New York as an analyst. (BTW I worked at those 2 firms) He moved to T. Rowe Price in 2011 and took over management of the $13.2 billion Health Sciences fund (ticker: PRHSX) in April 2016. He now manages $16.3 billion across the firm’s health-sciences strategy. The flagship fund has returned 14.4% on an annualized basis since then, nearly 3% better than the S&P 500 Health Care Sector index, after fees.
Sojourner55 re:
Here's an example of the price of stock being manipulated down before top line. A double bottom that touched its recent lows like NWBO.
Congrats to Branko!
[Suppressed Image]
About PimavanserinPimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors. These receptors are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression and other neuropsychiatric disorders. In vitro, pimavanserin demonstrated no appreciable binding affinity for dopamine (including D2), histamine, muscarinic, or adrenergic receptors. ACADIA is evaluating pimavanserin in an extensive clinical development program across multiple indications with significant unmet need including dementia-related psychosis, adjunctive major depressive disorder, and the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Pimavanserin was approved for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April 2016 under the trade name NUPLAZID(R). NUPLAZID is not approved for dementia-related psychosis, schizophrenia or major depressive disorder.
skitahoe re:
The scenario I believe would bring investors the most would involve a partnership after top line results are revealed, perhaps with the partner having a percentage interest in the company. I don't believe which company matters as long as they pay a considerable amount for what they're receiving. With the support and funding from the partner, not only does DCVax-L gain approval, but DCVax-Direct is on fast track to approval, with substantial evidence it will gain approval before a buyout is in negotiations. In this scenario, I believe we'd see $3 to $7 on the partnership, the share price would rise to $12 to $18 as approval and Direct data came in, and a buyout could come somewhere between $20 and $35.
I might add that once Direct were approved if no buyout occurred, the potential to go substantially higher is very possible, especially if trials demonstrate that our vaccines work on many different cancers. A strong partnership might prove to be more advantageous to investors than a buyout.
Gary
Thanks Photonic5 for the promptness of your reply.
Moreover it did NOT make sense to me when I found out Nally’s as EVP Chief Marketing Officer
Perhaps with this elimination more discrete Fishing may improve the chances with ADDITIONAL clues!
DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS
Updated from 2016:
Michael T. Nally
Executive Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer
Executive vice president, chief marketing officer, Merck & Co., Inc., 2019
President, Global Vaccines, Global Human Health, Merck & Co., Inc., 2016-2018
Managing Director, United Kingdom and Ireland, Global Human Health, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, 2014-2016
Managing Director, Sweden, Global Human Health, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, 2011-2013
Executive Director, Strategic Initiatives and Operations, Corporate Headquarters, Merck & Co., Inc., 2003-2011