Large golden chutes for senior managers are often used to discourage hostile takeovers.
I don't know if there's ever been one offered in delcath's past history, but it's highly possible that this "particular" severance package was actually just meant to serve simply as a
deterrent and a "ruse".
Crap, she may have
penned it herself.
Nevertheless, whether this company is legit or not, there's way too much pertinent info being withheld from shareholders.

.

Absolutely, and if fined by U.S. may be biggest fine ever recorded.

Agree. Only on occasions
where absolutely needed
in order to be clear
will I use IMO, IMHO, etc.

To overuse such a humble disclaimer is pure
saccharine-sweet,
obsequious nonsense
and makes it lose its meaning.

If anyone reading this board is not sharp enough to know how to use the info that is posted as "hearsay" (unless supported by a link or a statement/comment that can be fact-checked by the same means as the poster), they don't need to be
reading nor trading.

In this particular instance, Sam was "asked" for his opinion. Anyone who saw his post, which was a "reply" would "know"
that was the case.

Use it or don't.
The overused acronym means "nothing" to me, personally, because most people don't seem to know the true meaning of "opine" these days;
they just fire-off "feelings".
Poppycock!

Glad I clicked on that with my protected device and not my old computer cause your link was attached to a porn virus warning.
What the heck you been looking at? LOL

.

Also, one tier of the counterfeiting that occurs is at the "broker-dealer" level.
This is called ex–clearing. Multiple tricks are utilized for the purpose of disguising naked shorts that are fails–to–deliver as disclosed shorts, which means that a share has been borrowed. They also make naked shorts “invisible” to the system so they don't become fails–to–deliver, which is the only thing the SEC tracks.

Failure to deliver refers to a situation where one or both of the counterparties in a transaction does not meet their obligation.
Much of the the short volume is due to market makers selling into the market a few fractions of a second/minute/hour before they close their position by executing a broker order whether they need to cover or not.

http://www.volumebot.com/?s=dcth

Some of the other sites weren't reporting for today. A friend directed me here.
This is, of course, just the reported ones.

.

"Visible" reported shorts = 35.67% today.

I thought it'd be closer to 40 but,
35 bad enough.

I never said a change of control was coming soon. It should and it's needed but I expect it won't happen... yet I hope it does.
They've never shown any sign of raising money to "further the product". The misuse of funds has been practically flaunted in our faces. They're too brazen to even exhibit the decency of a "good crook" by covering their tracks.
.
.

There's absolutely no doubt about the abuse and misuse
of funds.
Not only has it been
commented-upon,
it's been documented.
They haven't actually tried to hide it.
Before it went otc, editors even wrote articles addressing it.
You were wise to
get-out and stay-out.

.

TheGreatGuy, the all-knowing, declared that we'd never see
.0072 again.
Where is he, TheGreatLieGuy?

Can't wait to see today's
"Visible"-Shorts report.
I estimate it to be at least 40%.
And I expect to see a
big ole 13G sometime in next 5 days....Not sure but gotta feelin'

They're setting it up just like they want it.

Are you Ricky Bobby? Lol
Ricky Bobby praying
to baby Jesus:
"Dear Eight Pound, Six Ounce, Newborn Baby Jesus, in your golden, fleece diapers, with your curled-up, fat, balled-up little fists pawin' at the air..."

Undoubtedly, in past filings, they awarded themselves bonuses for Not reaching their performance goal.
And that's the
dam* documented truth! :)

Not good press :
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/17/facebook-people-first-ever-mark-zuckerberg-harvard

Not necessarily.
In bankruptcy, company's
shareholders may be entitled to a portion of the liquidated assets, depending on which shares they hold and how much liquid assets are left over. However, the stock itself will become worthless, leaving shareholders unable to sell their defunct shares. Therefore, in the case of corporate bankruptcy, the only recourse is to hope there is money left over from the firm's liquidated assets to pay the shareholders.
The amount of the payment a common shareholder will receive is based on the proportion of ownership they have in the bankrupt firm. For example, suppose that a common stockholder owns 0.5% of the firm in question. If the firm has $100,000 to pay to its common shareholders post liquidation, this owner would receive a cash payment of $500.
.
.

Until it's dead, it will be like that lying, cheating, irresistibly-sexy deadbeat old flame who occasionally blows into town and shows up when you least expect him/her ...... catching you off guard and whispering sweet Nothings in your
tired, hungry ear.
I think I hear the Greyhound bus wheels rolling in.
Be on alert.

.

Bourne, I've wondered same thing. We're just left in the dark. My best theory is the 'chute was just a ruse to thwart a hostile takeover and seems to me that shareholders should have a right to know and have a say on any offers or takeover attempts.
The poison pill being used to thwart as well and all that does is decimate the pps and hurt shareholders even more.
Never ending cycle of right-jab insult, upper-cut injury.
Now we're down and out for the count.

.

SNS, they don't have to make it to the SEC watch-list to be guilty of illegal trading.
It can go on for years before even making it to a watch-list, and it can go on for years without ever being caught.
This lends a whole new dimension to the saying
"Buyer Beware".

Waqas Khatri. I'm simply guessing at this, but I'm thinking we'll read something about him soon. Maybe not.
Just thinking out loud.
I have no specific evidence for this; again, this is merely a "guess" and I normally don't post "guesses".

.

I'm not interested in convincing you. You likely wouldn't admit it if they were actually
busted for it.
Nevertheless, for whatever it's worth, other people Are interested in this issue and, it appears evident to "me" and others that this is indeed
taking place and has been, to varying degrees, for a very long time.
It is what it is, that is....unless or until they're busted.
It's not a far-reach to think this could be the next company that makes headlines due to the questionable antics of HB & Ayrton but, I'm not holding my breath; just observing the train wreck.

.

Simple. They manipulate it exactly how they need to and they profit at both ends. Somewhere in between the manipulation, if a skilled momo trader, like Superones for example, can find the
sweet-spot, he/she can catch a little profit. This is nothing but a highly manipulated little machine. Some activity is visible; much is hidden in the dark. Companies that "care" and that aren't "in bed" with the hedgehogs, can use newly developed software to stop this type of manipulation, but if the company is beholden to the hedgehogs, they play along.
That's it. That's just how it is.
No fundamentals or filings that can be cited can explain this away.

.

I'm not conjuring anything. The only thing that's conjured is the phantom shares they use to short. And correct, they're not recognized by the SEC b/c they don't incur a fail-to-deliver and they don't have to cover phantom shares that never existed.
I'm guessing you have way more trading experience than do I
yet, you don't understand the mechanics and the ramifications of naked shorting?
I could cite several sources for you to fact-check but, alas,
on any given day that you "choose" to be in denial, you just attempt (unsuccessfully) to discredit the info and DD regardless of how documented and credible it truly is.
All I can say is "read".
Those who read have a great advantage.

I'll take the bait. Nakeds don't have to cover b/c the shares are non-existent, not reported, no fail-to-deliver = no stress.

.

Yes, give credit where credit's due. Superones is a gifted chartist and a super
savvy momo trader.
When speaking honestly and exchanging his play-by-play charts on the other forum,
he's impressively reliable.

.

Hedge funds primary interest = shorting and naked-shorting.

The publicly visible fundamentals of a company are "secondary" to Them.

Years ago, I had one of my college professors "removed" for pushing his left wing agenda a bit too far as it "crippled" his ability to grade fairly.
Since you mentioned "school", it stands to reason that it's often unclear as to who's the teacher and who's the student.
That being said,
there's no denying the naked shorting and it does not matter to them about the "secondary" of importance...the convertibles

Facebook faces Class Action lawsuit over Facial Recognition
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43792125

Huh? Exaggeration? Lol. Much to the contrary.
Shorting is the #1 overlooked problem, specifically....
"naked shorting".
Dcth was approximately
23% "Visably" shorted yesterday and has been double or more that on other days.
The "visible" reported shorts do Not reflect the naked ones.
As long as the likes of
HB and Ayrton are players, this will be shorted into oblivion.

.

I did Not "set-out to cast doubt" as you stated;
I set-out to share information.
This forum is not limited to positive info and pumps;
it exists to share information and sentiment whether
negative or positive.
If you noticed, I'd not have shared the post just prior to this one if I were only interested in casting doubt.
I received an email stating that the trial was no longer offered solely due to "staffing problems at the university and not due to a prob with the trial or with FDA.
Still awaiting responses from other clinical-trial facilities.

.

Re: Resonse as to Why Not offering Clinical Trial.

Just received this response stating that reason was a staffing issue at the university and not due to problem with FDA or the trial itself.
If accurate, this is a relief for long term investors.
Still awaiting responses from other facilities.
Email response below:
.....................
Subject:
RE: NCT02678572, PHP-OCM-301, Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion vs Best Alternative Care in Patients With Hepatic-dominant Ocular Melanoma
...................
Response:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Weist, Matthew [MED]

<mweist@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu> wrote:

Correct the below listed trial, NCT02678572, we are no longer accepting patients on the trial.

This is not indicative of an issue with the trial or with the FDA, just logistical/staffing issues at the University currently.

Thanks and please let me know if you have any more questions,

Matt
.......................

The lack of knowledge (if that's the case) is concerning yet,
it's Less troubling than the fact that they hesitate to say the reason for closing enrollment;
I believe they'd tell me
if it were filled.
Nevertheless, I've replied with a request as to why it's no longer offered as well as why he mentioned uveal melanoma.
None of the others who promised to send me such info have responded but if he or any of the others respond,
I'll post it here.

Update on Clinical Trials:

This is of little importance if you're a technical trader just looking for a momo play but,
if you're an Investor this is troubling.
Why would the Clinical Research Coordinator seemingly Not know the difference between Hepatic-dominant Ocular Melanoma
and Uveal Melanoma?
I specifically requested info for the trial (w/NCT#) indicated via direct link on the site. After several delayed responses informing me that this university was no longer offering this trial, Today I get this email (below)
from the Coordinator:
.......
Weist, Matthew [MED]
April 16, 2018, 12:23 PM

RE: NCT02678572, PHP-OCM-301, Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion vs Best Alternative Care in Patients With Hepatic-dominant Ocular Melanoma

Hi #####,

Sorry it’s taken me a while to get back with you, I was out of the country.

Unfortunately, we are no longer enrolling patients on the above mentioned trial.

We do have other clinical that are available to treat uveal melanoma if you are interested.

You can call 773-702-8222 for new patient referrals and ask to meet with Dr. Jason Luke.

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else,

Matthew Weist, MS

Clinical Research Coordinator
Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology/Oncology
The University of Chicago Biological Sciences
5841 S. Maryland Ave. | Rm. M221, MC2115 | Chicago, IL 60637
Office: 773-702-1835 Fax: 773-702-1709

Absolutely. Everyone should always speak for themselves or, at least, from their own honest viewpoint if speaking to others.

That being said, I simply meant to state that it would be helpful (when pumping) to post links or other visual support to claims as is "exchanged" elsewhere for supportive evidence.

My most objective viewpoint:

For those momo traders
with a Clean-Slate
who aspire to trade solely
based on technicals,
"Superones" is an excellent interpreter of charts and
daily directional movement.

I would suggest that, if you're listening to anyone here who's advising you to "buy" or "sell", ask Superones to try to post his charts here for a better understanding of why you should or should Not
buy, sell or hold.
That would, at least, offer some semblance of support
for such advisement.

.

Exactly. Totally different situation now.
And given that the
.02-.030's run at That time
was a fluke;
a run of that degree Now
would be nothing short
of a miracle.

.

All I need is that 2000% pre-RS spike to break-even in this, my second, DCTH position. I'll not attempt to average-down to attain it.
I've written it off as a loss;
if a fluke spike happens, that's fine as frog-hair :)

What exactly do you believe in? You believe there's gonna be another (+/-)2000% run?
Based on what?
We have a completely different situation now than we did during that fluke run.

Facebook even tracks Non-Users. Bearish outlook beginning this week.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-tracking/facebook-fuels-broad-privacy-debate-by-tracking-non-users-idUSKBN1HM0DR

Zuckerberg's testimony raises new questions about Facebook's lobbying practices. Just what “reasonable privacy measures” might mean to Facebook remains to be seen.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/zuckerberg-s-testimony-raises-new-questions-facebook-s-lobbying-practices-n865726

"Cranked" is a perfectly legitimate slang word derived from "cranky". You didn't make a typo. It means annoyed or worried.
I simply wondered why you'd say the shorts were cranked or cranky because they have No worries when their shares are phantom shares that aren't even accountable.

.