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.
More Glaring Rosen errors: This Menon PhD thing is ridiculous. The Rosen complaint "quotes" the Future Woman article as quoting Menon that he got his PhD at Harvard, but the purported quote doesn't even quote Menon! It's clear from the original Future Woman article, and the quote in this complaint, that Future Woman erroneously inferred that Menon got his degree at Harvard because he was in a lab there, working under his advisor. Menon is never, not once, quoted in the article as getting his PhD from Harvard.
The India New England article has been debunked to the extent that India New England not only pulled it, but has since published an article about an award he and others were up for, mentioning his name in the article (without saying anything about their previous "findings").
http://174.143.136.22/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=233BAE5935EA4D918923B9F057221FBB&AudID=Editorial%20%26%20Opinion
The Poster Rosen refers to as "touting" B's ability to "kill" gram negative bacteria does not do so. It merely says "gram negative coverage." It "touts" "potent gram positive activity." Rosen states: "as defendants conceded in the August 7 Press Release, Defendants conceded that Brilacidin was not being developed for treating gram negative bacteria and was not likely an effective treatment against a broad spectrum of gram negative bacteria." This is not at all inconsistent with the statement in the poster and is not at all what CTIX said in that press release. This is: "Brilacidin is active against Gram-positive and is active against some, but not all, Gram-negative bacteria. Based on its activity profile, ABSSSI was selected as the target indication since organisms associated with these types of skin infections (Gram-positive S. aureus and Group A Streptococcus species) are susceptible to brilacidin. Brilacidin is not designed to treat the Gram-negative organisms of Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Importantly these are not ABSSSI pathogens. In fact, the most successful drugs currently used to treat ABSSSI, (namely vancomycin, daptomycin and linezolid) are agents that are effective only against Gram-positive pathogens and are not active against any Gram-negative organism including Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa."
K - Rosen states that the patient whose metastatic tumor disappeared had to drop out of the trial because her cancer returned. No, a biomarker that can be elevated for many reasons went up. CTIX disclosed this. It does not mean her cancer returned.
Anyone else get letter from Court complaint?
Departmental Disciplinary Committee
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
First Judicial Department
61 Broadway
New York, New York 10006
December 11, 2015
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
XXXXX
[my address]
Matter of Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Docket No. 2015.1967
Dear XXXX:
As you know, there is pending litigation concerning allegations which are substantially similar to the material allegations of professional misconduct you have alleged here. In particular, the pending suit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, involves issues directly related to the substance of your complaint. We have found that a judicial determination of such matters is helpful to the Committee. Accordingly, we have determined to defer further investigation at this time. Please inform the Committee of any court decision or other event which may warrant immediate investigation. In addition, the Committee will periodically take steps to ascertain the status of the litigation. The Committee will notify you if it determines at a later date to re-activate the investigation.
Very truly yours,
Jorge Dopico
Chief Counsel
I got the exact same letter on Kim in the same envelope (as I sent the complaints in at the same time):
"Matter of Phillip Kim, Esq.
Docket No. 2015.1966
It should also be great publicity for CTIX. Forget the science writers who for some reason seem unaware about the potential cancer and antibiotic breakthroughs, if the SEC gets involved, or Rosen/Kim are sanctioned or a conspiracy with Mako uncovered, especially given the stature of Michael Sullivan, business writers (in WSJ, NYT, etc) as well as broadcast shows focusing on business (FBN, CNBC), or even cable/broadcast news shows liking a good perp walk, will be all over this story. And, to tell the story, they'll have to tell about CTIX's potential breakthroughs and blockbusters, to illustrate why all the allegations were bogus in the first place.
Future Woman article: The following 3 paragraphs are what I wrote about that in my complaint to the NY Court against Rosen and Kim:
In #17 of the lawsuit, it states: "On May 10, 2013, Future Woman published a profile article on Defendant Menon, which he was interviewed for. In the article Defendant Menon confirmed earning his PhD in Pharmacology from Harvard University." This is false. The Future Woman article can be found at http://www.futuremedicineonline.com/detail_news.php?id=103 (and is also attached) and includes quotes by Dr. Menon. There is no quote by him stating he got his PhD in pharmacology from Harvard. This is the paragraph in question in its entirety:
During that time, Tom Frei was the Scientific Advisor to a company called Pfizer. He offered Menon a job in his firm as a scientist. A bachelor’s degree in BVSC and some work experience in Jamaica were the only plus points Menon had with him then.Menon came very close to Tom while working at the firm. But within three months, Frei forced Menon to quit the job and took him to Harvard University. Tom made Menon a scientist at his laboratory in Harvard. But as per Harvard’s law, one should have doctorate to work there. As Menon didn’t have a PhD, it was a major challenge before him. But Tom was not ready to give up. He admitted Menon as a PhD student under his guidance. And it’s the time for Menon to act. He took his first PhD in pharmacology in 34 months. Foliage mechanism was the research subject of Menon.
As you can see, Dr. Menon is not quoted as saying he got his PhD from Harvard and certainly did not "confirm" this. Future Woman does not even imply that he earned it there. Prestigious scientists mentor others all the time in their labs, but then get your degree elsewhere. It happens all the time. Surely Kim and Rosen knew this. But, even if they did not, there is nothing in that article that states or implies that Menon "confirmed" he got his PhD from Harvard.
Fabulous! I was just going to post, wondering if this might get CTIX some publicity from reporters with a non-science beat, ie law, SEC, stocks, etc. Given how high profile the attorney Leo hired is, this story could easily get picked up by some big news outlets.
I got an email from Leo after I emailed him in response to the PR this am. I told him (as I didn't know if he knew) that several of us had filed formal complaints against Rosen and Kim with the NY Court that oversees ethics/misconduct. He responded: "I appreciate it. Keep me informed."
When anyone gets a response from the Court, please post and also let Leo know.
And, at the very least, the attorney has to respond to every complaint if it passes the Court's first pass, which, according to the criteria on the Court's website, this would seem to. So, the more who complain the more time and energy Rosen and Kim have to expend. Even if they only get sanctioned, this would become public and may dissuade others from filing these ridiculous suits. Even if nothing happens to them, perhaps they themselves will think twice before doing something like this, again. It can't be pleasant to have to answer to a court for potential misconduct.
Rosen will also have to divert time and money responding to each of our complaints with NY Court. It's not too late to send in a complaint. If Rosen/Kim are sanctioned for this, THAT would be a great PR, and all the other piler-oners would disappear. This could happen well before their case is thrown out or any counter action by Leo.
Does Leo know several of us have filed complaints with the NY Court against Rosen and Kim? If not, can someone email to let him know? That may also be something CTIX's attorney will want to do on its behalf. It may also give all of our complaints more weight.
Mako different standard? I also wonder if SA would be held to a higher standard in this case, as the Mako article wasn't purported to be written by just some jerk in his mother's basement, so who cares about his "opinion". Instead, Mako specifically said it's a "research" outfit with "staff" and a "paid doctor of biochemistry." So, not only did SA publish completely false info, but they don't even vet authors (or their "experts") who say they are anything more than just plain folks?
Absolutely. Count me in for 2 - I have CTIX shares in a joint account with my husband.
Barron4644 - thank you. In the spirit of your post, wanted to thank you for first broaching the idea and means of complaining to the NY Court re Rosen and Kim and the ethics violations.
I just finished making copies of all the supporting documents to send. I updated my complaint with the additional citations you gave of specific Code of Conduct violations, and it's all ready to go.
All shareholders support CTIX by having bought shares. It felt almost as good to do something in many ways even more tangible and active, and to support this company that has promising drugs with the potential to change, even save lives.
New + Boston Biz Journal Article:
"Beverly biotech fights back, calls lawsuit 'reprehensible and nothing but a drain on the system'" by the same reporter who did the original article, visiting CTIX, refuting Mako's clains it was a nonexistent shell.
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bioflash/2015/09/beverly-biotech-fights-back-calls-lawsuit.html?ana=yahoo
I called the Court and you must file separate complaints against each attorney, even though they are in the same firm. You must also send them in separate envelopes and include hard copies of all supporting documents (so links to websites don't count).
Must also include hard copies of all supporting documents. And, if you file a complaint against Kim and Rosen (they are each the named lawyers on the suit, so should be) you must mail 2 separate complaint forms in 2 separate envelopes and include the hard copy of the supporting documents in each envelope.
I called and asked about this.
Code of Conduct Rule 3.1:
Non-Meritorious Claims and Contentions (a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding or for the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established. (b) A lawyer's conduct is "frivolous" for purposes of this Rule if: (1) the lawyer knowingly advances a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;(2) the conduct has no reasonable purpose other than to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation, in violation of Rule 3.2, or serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another; or(3) the lawyer knowingly asserts material factual
As Barron pointed out, this is the rule they have violated. I said to also file complaints against McKenna and Egleston because it seems they are the only other law firm that has actually filed a suit and because they are also in Manhattan, so it is the exact same process and form and practically verbatim complaint.
Perhaps an attorney on the board (I am not one) can weigh in on if 3.1 covers attorneys who are fishing, not just those that have filed.
Foreigners can file a complaint. I just read over the link on filing and what is covered. There is nothing that precludes foreigners - which makes sense. Not only US citizens are represented by US lawyers. And again, to clarify, the rules specifically state you do NOT have to be a client of the lawyer to file.
Here is the link, again:
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/AD1/Committees&Programs/DDC/index.shtml
I don't want to share verbatim what I've written, as I think multiple complaints from several people that have the same wording will have less impact - kind of like all the law firms piling on with the exact same fishing language. LOL.
However, I will post shortly the outline/highlights. Hopefully that will help.
I called the complaint office to specifically ask if any of the personal information of anyone filing a complaint is ever made public. It is not. So do not fear that your name, address, phone number will be made public. All that is ever made public, and only if the attorney is publically sanctioned, are the proceedings from the discussion they have to decide about the sanctions.
You must file a separate complaint against each attorney. So copy and paste in the same form and file for Kim, Rosen and now McKenna and Egleston who are also in Manhattan and the same jurisdiction.
You can't complain if you do nothing. We are all complaining about how broken the legal system is that allows these frivolous lawsuits to be filed. The system also has this process to sanction attorneys who do this. Don't complain about the system if you don't take advantage of the means to fix it.
Don't complain re lawyers if you're not willing to do something about it:
File a complaint. It's very easy to do. It's in my prior post.
And now for Gainey - to file complaint w/NY bar is the exact same process I outlined in that prior post, as Gainey is also in Manhattan. Anyone filing a complaint against Rosen and Kim, should just make another 3 copies, substitute Gainey, then McKenna then Egleston (just like they did in basically substituting their names in Rosen's filing. Have to love the irony). According to the procedure I posted, a separate complaint has to be filed for each attorney.
It's very easy to do. Everyone complains how easy it is for these firms to fish to enrich themselves at the expense of shareholders and the crazy legal system we have that allows it. Well, the system also provides for complaints to be filed. Don't complain if you do aren't willing to do something to change it.
Suit NNVC brought vs. SA was different. "Pump terminator" did not hold himself out to be a "research" company with "staff," including a paid "doctor of biochemistry."
Link to file NY court complaint. Since there were different links given, this is the correct one:
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/AD1/Committees&Programs/DDC/index.shtml
It outlines the complaint process and has a link to the form. You don't need to be a client to complain about an attorney. It also looks like a complaint will definitely pass the initial screening, then, "If the initial screening reveals that the complaint is within our Committee's authority and may involve an ethical violation, the legal staff will carry out an initial investigation of the case. During this investigation, the attorney about whom you complained will be sent a copy of your complaint and will be given the opportunity to respond to it. You, in turn, will be given the opportunity to reply to the lawyer's response."
Reading Kim's response to all of our complaints should be interesting. I'm filling the form out now (it's very short and simple) - I hope others do, as well.
Menon made no such claim. Note that in the article, there are several quotes of his, but NONE about getting a PhD at Harvard.
Your point about prestigious scientists mentoring is a good one. It happens all the time, then you get your degree elsewhere. Even with an MD, which is what I have experience in, you can rotate to clinics/hospitals/labs all over the world while you're in training. You do it for the experience and exposure to different physicians/diseases, etc. It has nothing to do with where you actually get your degree from.
Menon did NOT "claim" or "confirm" (as the lawsuit puts it) that he got his degree from Harvard in the article. Again, no quotes, and even if there were quotes around that sentence, it did not say that's where he got his PhD.
The mistake, if there was one, was lack of clarity on the part of the writer of the article.
I'm a published author and do interviews all the time. The article comes out, and sometimes you're misquoted. But more often, the reporter, who has little science background, interprets something you say incorrectly and publishes it in the body of the article, not in a quote. This appears to be what happened here, although the sentence in question does not make any claim of a Harvard PhD. This is an incorrect conclusion on Rosen's chart - just as incorrect as their conclusion that the SA article was an accurate source of information.
Worse than ambulance chasers. At least with ambulance chasers, there's a real accident.
You'd be surprised at MD writing. :) I'd be more shocked that an ED Resident didn't know the different between gram neg vs pos bacteria.
Class Action Lawsuit against SA? If there are law firms like Rosen trolling for investor lawsuits, why not against SA?
Article re today's news (including Leo's smiling face):
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bioflash/2015/07/beverly-biotech-shares-spike-on-good-news-for.html
Hopefully, some larger outlets will follow. I'm really looking forward to reading the P1 results. As others have mentioned, must have been stellar. This is such a deadly cancer - news is wonderful for patients - and investors, of course.
Speaking of Twitter, I noticed that until this week, there were only handful of tweets, if that many, a day mentioning CTIX. Today, there are already a dozen. I do realize that many come from crap pumping/subscription sites, but perhaps this is yet another indication of increased awareness, maybe even possibly accounting for some of the recent buying.
Wait list to get into K trial. I emailed about a month ago and got a quick response. I identified myself as an MD with a close friend who has exhausted approved tx options for her cancer (all true). I got a quick reply, saying there was a wait list for the K trial.
Messaged her on FB.
I thought examples were given of drug company execs who had never heard of CTIX. I specifically remember Karin sitting next to one on the plane back and telling her all about the company, showing her the data presented on her smartphone, and this exec then showing it to someone else.
I could be confused, but it does seem at odds with "daily inquiries."
"Fielding inquiries daily" re partnership, is what Leo told ihubers at the conference. Yet, those who attended the conference said that no one they spoke to there had ever heard of CTIX. Can anyone comment on the discrepancy?
Yes, they would need a ROI (Release of Information), however, it's inconceivable to me that one would not have been obtained prior to her starting the study, so that her oncologist and the researchers could be in touch whenever needed. Her oncologist, of course, would have wanted to get copies of the latest scans that showed the near disappearance of the splenic tumor, as well as the blood marker results - and all the other tests they've done while she was in the study. She can, of course, revoke the ROI at any time, but that seems unlikely. Why wouldn't she want to potentially help other cancer patients while keeping her anonymity?
I don't see why they couldn't, through her oncologist. The near disappearance of a tumor at this stage is extraordinary and DF will undoubtedly want to follow up on what happened to her.
Uh, no. We have no idea why she decided what she did, but who are we to say her decision wasn't the best one for her?
One of my patients, a smart, health and fitness nut her entire life who died of her cancer (even though she did the most invasive, disfiguring treatments/surgeries possible, because her priority was to live for her young child) once said to me, "I get these idiotic thoughts like, 'If only I'd eaten more broccoli.'"
That became kind of a short hand, inside joke for us, whenever she'd blame herself for something going wrong in her treatment, like it not working. I'd say to her, "You should have eaten more broccoli." And we would laugh and she would realize she was being ridiculous in her expectations of herself.
I still think of her and she died over a decade ago. She decided to go for a horrible surgery early on that had the best chance of prolonging her life, but that many smart people told her was not necessary - yet. If it had saved her life, those same smart people might not look very smart. It didn't and she went through what turned out to be unnecessary, painful procedures. Do those people who told her no look smarter? I don't think so. Does she look dumb because she made the wrong decision? No to that, as well. In the end, she was very happy she'd made that wrong decision, so at least when she died, she'd know she'd done everything she could.
For the woman in this study, she was likely thinking "what if I continue on and my marker increases? Why should I take that chance?" And if she had and it had, well, I don't think any of us expect K to show 100% cure rate/efficacy, do we? Especially for cancer that has 17% survival. So, if she had continued and died anyway, that would mean she couldn't have tried something else that might have had a chance of saving her. Would you call her not so smart then?
She was in a safety study of an unproven drug. That alone takes courage and smarts.
Re the elevated biomarker: from patients I have seen (and again, I'm not an oncologist, but have treated many patients with cancer), I think a very realistic explanation for her dropping out is this: Getting into the study in the first place was a Hail Mary pass. Ovarian Stage 4 has a 17% survival rate, I believe. She was in the safety (not efficacy) phase of the study. She was feeling awful (no energy, had ascites) and has likely been feeling that way for some time.
Now, all of a sudden, she feels so good, she can hike with her family. Ascites gone. Maybe she has more hope for the first time in a long time, or maybe she doesn't really have any more hope, but believes that for whatever time she has left, she'll now have a better quality of life, thanks to K. She likely can't read PET, CT, MRIs, etc and depends on others to interpret them. But, what she can understand and see for herself (and thus likely feels she has more control in decision making about - don't underestimate the loss of control cancer pts feel) is the marker. It's a simple number. It goes up and down. (And as others have said, it can be influenced by many things, including those having nothing to do with cancer.) She's suddenly feeling better than she has in a long time, but her number goes up 10%. She has always been told and likely experienced that it generally correlates with her cancer worsening/spreading. She may have gotten scared (who wouldn't) and decided not to tempt fate, be happy with what K has given her, maybe try a different trial that looks at efficacy in some other compound, or maybe just live whatever time she has left to the fullest and not be burdened by more trials. (Maybe there's even something on her bucket list she really, really wants to do, and now can, if she leaves. Maybe she's been telling herself for the past year or two, "If I ever feel better, I'll.... ") Especially when she's feeling so much better, a higher number is scary - as she got a taste of feeling close to back to normal, and was afraid that her feeling that way wouldn't last long unless she tried something else/stopped K.
Someone mentioned her oncologist. He/she likely has nothing to do with the study and may not even know much about K. She or her family may have been the ones to find the study. We don't know what advice the oncologist gave her, but ultimately, it was her decision to leave, and I feel very confident we should read absolutely nothing into it re K.
Could be, hard to tell. The gist of the PR and the biggest point being underscored seemed to be that one case. When Leo is then quoted, “We don’t know of any other company, regardless of specialization, albeit small molecule, immunotherapy or other, that has published [emphasis mine] an effect like that in such a hard-to-treat disease like metastatic ovarian cancer during a Phase 1 safety trial...."
"[T]hat has published an effect like that" seems to refer to the article referenced previously in the PR, that DF wants them to get more info on, and so it seems he's referring to an article about that one case, since no other company "has published" (until now, ie DF's article) anything like that.
The additional info DF wants CTIX to gather is clearly for more general info re K ("on multiple cancer lines as demonstrated in the clinical trial"!) than that one case. But, that would make sense to me to publish as part of a clinical case report, as why publish a report in a journal on that one case without also mentioning all the potential indications, as well as "safety and pharmacological effect" of K, so docs and researchers would know it's not just a one trick pony.
Either way, word is getting out and I am thrilled to be an investor but also in some small way via my investment, a supporter of this potential game-changer for patients.
The "article" could simply be a case report in a journal, which makes sense to me, as it seems it will only be about this one case where the tumor nearly disappeared. To have a case report published would likely still take months, but would be nowhere near the lag time of an actual, peer-reviewed, journal article. These kinds of case reports appear all the time in medical journals when something extraordinary happens.
Of course, this could be referring to a proposed article in the lay press as others have said. I wonder, however, why then DF would need to get CTIX to give them info. Wouldn't they just tell the reporter for the newspaper or magazine to contact CTIX themselves? The reporter would have to anyway, to verify, etc.
Either way, a case report from DF in a medical journal, or a story of a tumor nearly disappearing from a new, promising cancer drug in the lay press - the word will get out. It's just a question of how soon.