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.
There is support for this.
The plan looks solid and is appreciated. But I agree, 2 years seems like under-performance, in my opinion. Maybe they have finally learned the art of under promising and over delivering as opposed to the opposite. We can only hope.
Looking from the outside in, with the new focus on manufacturing, with market demand being considerable and growing, with the accolades that Avid has been awarded to date, with the excess capacity that we have been told is currently available and with more capacity to come, all the while they are mitigating costs elsewhere, it would seem they could become profitable much quicker then 2 years. In my opinion, this is really setting the bar low..Where is the sense of urgency that is necessary in this situation? Let's hope reality far out performs this seemingly less than ambitious goal.
A reverse split at this juncture would be more than irresponsible without news ensuring value is maintained or increased -- that is unless Bavi proves to have no worth. They have the ability and seem to be structuring things properly with their focus on increasing revenues with avid and mitigating their costs through the arrangement they have with AZN while also focusing on gaining synergies with MSK and NCCN likely with AZN directing the entire process ensuring maximum efficiency and structure. If this is truly the plan and if this is managed properly, the only thing that should derail this effort is if Bavi doesn't show efficacy. Obviously we don't really know what is happening behind the scenes which is cause for concern but it appears to be a positive and logical plan. I am comfortable with this management group focusing on avid because they seem to have managed that process well to date. I think, I hope from a clinical standpoint the ball is completely in AZN's hands now. It appears to be more so every day. It all comes down to Bavi showing efficacy or not. As an investor, personally, I am good with that. But I still need more evidence that things are proceeding responsibly. All in my opinion.
They need to get this technology in stronger hands. It is the only responsible thing to do. A money partnership or several money partnerships or a complete buyout. Until then they need to be responsible with the cost structure of the business. They chose this path and now they have to be responsible in how they proceed. It can be managed.
She said she wasn't aware of a BLA submission being prepared or submitted at this point.
Point taken. Maybe I should say that assuming they are meeting their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders which is their legal obligation. I invested in the science and was somewhat oblivious to the management group when I first came on scene. I take responsibility for that. I did assume they would focus on meeting their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, but for the last 20 years I have seen a number of drugs shelved without any real explanation, continued dilution without tangible results, half baked press releases prior to their mandatory meeting with shareholders, outright lies about circumstances that required public explanation and a continued lack of respect from wall street and a resulting share price that has put us all deep in the hole. The problem here is not the product. If they were half as good at bringing real results to fruition as they are at legally protecting their little nest, ensuring there is no accountability and rewarding themselves for less than tangible results then I believe we would not be having this conversation. Again if they turn this situation around then I want them to be rewarded accordingly. I want them to provide us good reason to support them. But the days of reward at the expense of their shareholders are quickly coming to an end. They have to produce now. They have what they need to do so.
Everyone here has different time horizons, monetary capabilities, motives etc. You have to do what is right for you. Your questions are spot on Loof and represent the feeling of the majority of long held retail shareholders. I am hoping this management team turns this around. There is nothing more than we all want than to support them in their efforts assuming their efforts are in alignment with the needs and desires of the current investors of this company. But to believe that we have no course of action if they continue with further, unlimited dilution and no real results is, at minimum, highly underestimating. Let's hope they move the ball forward this time and show us they are working in our behalf. Status quo will not be accepted any longer. Assuming Bavi works, they have the tools and the ability to win this game for all shareholders right now. We need to see results, not more of the same.
Correction from IR concerning the PDL1/bavi combo data. From Stephanie Diaz.
No. I corrected myself. The data we have is pre-clinical and translational – not human. Apologies if that was unclear.
No human data at present.
It's time to perform. It is time to partner. I think we all want confidence not excuses. If they are willing to publish the phase 3 sunrise results that shows confidence that Bavi performed well enough to not have to sweep the results under the rug. Such confidence should now be leveraged to get a money deal done. I feel they do have the cornerstone molecule in the I/O space. The one concern I have with this group is they seem to believe they own the exclusive right to lead this drug to approval, without any need for outside assistance. That would be fine if they surrounded themselves with the players necessary to make it happen. That is leadership. Not recognizing the importance of strengthening the team is a major weakness in my opinion and only highlights their insecurity or egos. Do what it takes to get the job done. That is leadership. No more excuses. Bring in the talent that can negotiate a deal. Nothing against Worsley. He is the lone ranger in this process. He needs help. They need a highly experienced team (not lawyers) but experienced and proven closers in the Biotech field that can get the job done. Obviously this is my opinion but the results -- or lack there of -- in partnering with a good money deal speak for themselves. These guys are experienced now and I'm hoping they have their priorities straight. I wish they would send the right signals by strengthening the board with more biotech experience and bring in 1 or 2 more top notch closers to help Worsley close a money deal. That would be money well spent. We need them to show leadership now. Stop the insanity and the excuses.
The questions were provided to her in advance. She had time to prep. I am sure the answers were given to her. That is what I expected.
I just discussed a # of subjects with Stephanie Diaz from IR today. She was forthright with the information she had. She understands the current frustration of shareholders and indicated that she is willing to provide answers as she gets information. I found her forthright and I felt she was honest and I don't know if she shed any further light on the situation but I appreciated her taking the time to answer questions. The questions are below. It may provide a more definitive view of the company's perspective but likely nothing new in terms of information.
1. Why was there not a contingency plan ready if sunrise failed? Stephanie indicated that they are not a one trick pony. They have many opportunities with Bavi beyond Sunrise which represented just one of the many opportunities. In essence they feel they did have contingency plans in place working with MSK, NCCN AZN I/O combinations. They have tapped into the best of the best when it comes to studying bavi in combination studies and feel they have positioned this biologic for future success. I pushed back by saying that Sunrise was the most prolific trial in the history of the company. They seemingly made a conscious choice to go it alone and because of that compromised this phase 3 trial which represented more immediate success for long term shareholders -- and starting down the I/O combination road represented to a certain extent starting over. Because of that we are concerned about further massive dilution and want them to do everything possible to ensure the burn rate stays at a minimum while they look for ways of quickly financing the I/O combination trials with a focus on partnering or if necessary outright sale of the company.
2. When can the stockholders expect an updated plan dealing with the current challenges? She felt the plan was in place and transparent. They were putting chemo on hold, completing the gathering of information from the remaining participants in the sunrise trial, ramping up avid with 3 times current capacity available and focusing their efforts on the I/O combination space that shows promise. Garnick is fully on board working to understand what happened in the Sunrise trial. I asked about a potential BLA. She indicated she has heard nothing about that. I indicated that with the share price going down shareholders want more updated information on costs and future direction of the company. The concern is we return to status quo with no sense of urgency, tough decisions not being made -- leading to another reverse split or further excessive dilution. She indicated they are doing everything possible to ensure they can keep dilution to a minimum while they work to correct this situation. I indicated that they aren’t sending the right signals to wall street thus the share price continues to tank. They could provide more updated information on the successes they are seeing with avid growth and how well they are doing keeping the burn rate down to a minimum. They could possibly purchase shares on the open market and bring more biotech experience to the board and management team. These are the right signals that will only help establish some confidence with current and future investors. They can do much of this starting immediately. She said she understood.
3. What actions are being taken to ensure this company is minimizing costs? Stopped chemo. She has not heard of any other specifics. They are still trying to juggle a number of balls and they need the resources to do so. I reminded her that current shareholders expect they do so responsibly and not burn through cash reserves without any forethought. I stressed this to be critical to current shareholders. We don’t want another round of massive dilution. That will not be acceptable.
4. Are corporate officials taking a pay cut during this challenging time? If not how does the BOD and management justify maintaining such high salaries with the historically pitiful stock performance under their guidance? No pay cuts that she has heard of. I left it at that.
5. Will we be updated on the results found in the failed sunrise trial specifically concerning what caused the unusual control arm performance and will there be any updates concerning the specific performance of bavi? If so when will we be updated. She says they are thinking of publishing all the data when it is complete. She expects it will be complete mid-summer but that was a guesstimate. She also reminded me that other biotech's have had the same problem with the control arm outperforming historical data. It is not just PPHM's trial that was affected. I indicated all the more reason to partner.
6. What is the current status of the AZN relationship noting that AZN is taking a more selective approach to M&A and yet focusing on oncology? Data from sunrise is being collected and AZN will be privy to this data. They are working cooperatively together to determine direction. She indicated they had some human data to share in combination with PDL1 and they are using everything they have to bring in resources in form of a partnership. I didn't quite get what she meant here in terms of human data. She indicated that it is a tough process and in her experience takes time to develop. I reminded how much time has gone by to date. She assured me it is a priority.
If you feel you have other questions feel free to contact her. I did my best in documenting what she said so as to share the company perspective with suffering shareholders.
I certainly did not research it in depth but I did find this quote:
In the United States, corporate law is largely based upon state law. Although the laws of each state differ, the laws of the states such as Delaware, New York, and California, where corporations often incorporate, institute a number of barriers to derivative suits.
Can a derivative law suit be brought against an officer in a Delaware based corporation. It is not clear.
I see it as a very smart answer and approach.
Frustration is getting the best of us. Loof is obviously being facetious. Let's wait for the plan. I'm hoping we are all pleasantly surprised. Sunrise was not stopped because Bavi did not perform as expected. Worse case scenario this management team was schooled by big pharma. If that is the case, let's see if they learned anything. It certainly is not an ideal situation but all hope is not lost. Bavi likely works and that still holds value. Now can they leverage such value in a time frame that all current shareholders win. In my opinion they should be able to do so. Let's wait for the plan and let's all realize we are in this situation together. I still believe there is a win in the end for all affected. Not an easy situation.
In my opinion, this derivative lawsuit makes the most sense. Let's see what they come up with by the next quarterly call and then decide what is most prudent. This seems to be the most logical approach assuming the pending plan is lacking. I just hope they step up now but want to be prepared if they don't. A proxy is a longer, more difficult path. They are entrenched in legal ease which is also a red flag for wall street. It's a difficult situation but not insurmountable. A derivative lawsuit seems to be a logical approach assuming...Let's hope it's not needed.
Maybe you're right but the shares are accumulating.
My friend I respect your opinion. Personally I think the worst possible approach would be to sit back passively and watch the obvious being ignored. -- hoping like hell that doesn't happen. The biologic appears special. This is more about this team exercising common sense now and making some tough decisions. I like bunglers idea. But most preferably I would love to see these guys work aggressively to win this game for all affected. I believe it is going to happen this time. But in my opinion they can't do it alone and they can't do it without making some tough decisions. That's what I want to see. If not, I refuse to give in to a helpless attitude. We are not helpless. We are not!
Let's hope we don't need to exercise our collective power. I expect they are preparing the plan in conjunction with garnick's findings. I expect a positive surprise -- a plan that finally shows they have learned from the many challenging times that we have all endured. This can turn on a dime or maybe 4 dimes. But it doesn't hurt to prepare to show collective strength, if they prove to be slow learners. If you wish send me contact information and # of shares. I am simply collecting and tallying at this time. Bfiest@comcast.net
Yes. Absolutely. No more passes. They need to deliver a solid plan and they need to be aggressive in pursuing that plan. There are no guarantees but this fantasy world with no accountability has only led to mediocrity. No more. They have what it takes to be successful. Step up or step aside. All in my opinion.
I think some would be surprised the number of significant shareholders that echo similar thoughts. Obviously this is based on frustration and we have to provide them time to right this ship. We only wish the best for this company and any negative sentiment is rooted in a .40 share price after all these years with all this seemingly significant potential. The lack of communication only fuels this fire. The responsibility for where we are currently -- lies directly on the BOD and managements shoulders. There is no other way to spin it no matter how hard some try. They have outlined and followed a go it alone strategy that has only highlighted their in-capabilities. WS does not trust this group and if they were really focused on success they would remedy this situation asap with a transfer of power that puts Bavi in more capable hands -- however that looks. In my opinion, at the very minimum this group has been grossly naive. Can that change? We all hope so. Bottom line, if they continue this same go it alone strategy, undergoing mishap after mishap, protecting themselves against any outside influences, they are surely not meeting their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. I think any reasonable person can agree that this approach, at minimum, must change. Time will tell what choices they make. This ship can be righted with the proper approach. We hope for the best.
Any change in direction is a good sign for me...There is likely more value here than we are privy to. Make a deal.
Nobody wants a lawsuit. We want a responsible group of managers that are working for better care for cancer patients and keeping our interests in mind. Sometimes they seem intent on making that so difficult to believe. They have to step up now and prove that they are in this game to win it. All this hindsight stuff means nothing anymore. Partnerships that have gone bad, trials that have been tampered with -- it almost seems some give them a pass for having nothing to do with this. That cannot be further from the truth. At minimum they have been following a strategy that has led to this current reality. There have been the signs of a lack of detail along the way. They can still pull this out -- but no more going it alone. It is time to make the responsible decision to get this biologic in more capable hands. We as shareholders know this is the only responsible course of action at this point. And yes I want them to negotiate the best deal. But they have to learn to play properly with the big boys. It is give and take. They have had plenty of time and resources to learn the game. It's time they deliver.
In normal business operations the quarterly call is where most of the updates occur unless there is a material event that occurs in the interim. This is far from normal business operations. Are they mandated to provide an update? No, unless there is a material event. Should they provide an update? It would go a long way in showing their concern for good relations with their shareholders. Are there consequences if they don't provide an update? Not really. There really is no BOD and management accountability with the structure in place.
But all of this does not preclude their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders. That is what we all must remember. They have a legal obligation to do so and it is important that we all understand that. It is important that they respect that. It is rarely a concern in most companies. I expect they will fall in line with the majority of companies.
There are a number of investors that agree with such logic. It only makes sense.
He made the comment. Let's see the back-up to such a comment.
Can you provide an example or examples of a company with a stopped double blinded trial such as sunrise that submitted a BLA that was approved?
If they can't deliver a money partnership prior to their need for further funding this is the only responsible approach.
Should be expected. It is the only responsible approach at this time assuming Bavi proves worthy or is proving worthy in the I/O combo space.
In my opinion sensible.
Agreed!
I'm glad we can agree on something. And I'm happy for you that you believe you are right.
Wouldn't that be a welcomed surprise. Agreed.
I encourage those that are interested to read Wikipedia's explanation of poison pills. It explains the structure and use of poison pills. Beware of those that spend unlimited time on this board trying to sway your opinion. I am not trying to do so. I just want both sides -- good and bad presented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_rights_plan
The poison pill does not trigger automatically. It is triggered at the discretion of management. It is the big stick management holds over anyone that attempts a hostile takeover. The question is how they determine when to use it? I doubt anyone is confused. Personally if a suitor offered $5.00 right now I would take it. Management on the other hand might elect to trigger the poison pill forestalling or possibly hindering my investment appreciation forever. And yes I know I have the option to purchase more shares at the highly discounted rate allotted by contract. I personally would prefer the $5.00 per share. It depends how they use it and it depends what your investment goals are.
First of all that is your opinion not really a fact. Everyone can have a differing opinion. In my opinion, it all depends on how it is administered.
"Shareholder rights plans, or poison pills, are controversial because they hinder an active market for corporate control. Further, giving directors the power to deter takeovers puts directors in a position to enrich themselves, as they may effectively ask to be compensated for the price of consenting to a takeover."
"Some have argued that poison pills are detrimental to shareholder interests because they perpetuate existing management. For instance, Microsoft originally made an unsolicited bid for Yahoo!, but subsequently dropped the bid after Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang threatened to make the takeover as difficult as possible unless Microsoft raised the price to US$37 per share. One Microsoft executive commented, "They are going to burn the furniture if we go hostile. They are going to destroy the place." Yahoo has had a shareholders rights plan in place since 2001.[4] Analysts suggested that Microsoft's raised offer of $33 per share was already too expensive, and that Yang was not bargaining in good faith, which later led to several shareholder lawsuits and an aborted proxy fight from Carl Icahn.[5][6] Yahoo's stock price plunged after Microsoft withdrew the bid, and Jerry Yang faced a backlash from stockholders that eventually led to his resignation."
Let's please keep it real here CP. Who does the poison pill really protect? That is a viable question. Read for yourselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_rights_plan
Nice post. Agreed.
Does anyone know the specific stock issuance deal we would get as shareholders of record if there were a hostile takeover occurring? What is the legal offer under the poison pill? Thanks