@Senti, I don't know why you are wound up about the German tax issue. Even if nwbo capitulates, it's less than $1m.

What's another 3m shares when they gave insiders over 200m shares/warrants/options in the last 5 weeks?

Yes, nwbo blundered by delaying the 10-Q by over a month because of a nit they could have footnoted. They're current on statements now. Water under the bridge.

Stupp?

That was exactly my point if you took the time to read carefully.

You have a nasty habit of assuming that other posters don't know anything, which is even worse because you are so often wrong.

Up-listing isn’t the only reason to do a reverse split. It can be a sneaky way of increasing authorized shares without having shareholders vote specifically for it.

Investors are on to that game. CYTR is a microcap biotech with a CEO who has pulled some crap on investors. They voted down his RS until it was revised to decrease share authorization proportionately.

So every uptick is righteous genuine volume, and every downtick is manipulation? You seriously believe that? ROTFL

Do you have any factual evidence that there is collusion trading, or is that something you just made up?

In the long term scheme of things, a penny or two makes no difference. I do not understand the need to manufacture nonsense explanations.

nwbo traded 6.6m shares today, which is more than 2x average daily volume.

Until they are fully ready to relist on NASDAQ, it is not clear that a RS accomplishes much.

If you are thinking about institutional interest, they need to be listed and over $5 to be in the investable universe for most firms.

If nwbo was ready to relist, their market cap is above the latest Russell index reconstitution cutoff. However, so much of the market cap has been given to themselves that they might not have sufficient free float.

How is this any different than Carlo Rago being paid to write a paper that promotes nwbo?

If you see them differently because you like what Rago wrote, then that is not a fair criticism.

BP buying a percentage would increase shares outstanding even more. Unless the market price dropped on such an investment (seems unlikely), LP could not buy more shares than that on the open market.

If there is a deal that pushes the price up, the cost of buying back shares would increase. It would also make it far more likely that options/warrants/converts get exercised, which again would increase shares outstanding.

Your idea does not work.

I agree with your numbers. Way past 1.2b authorized, but they don't need them all now, so no legal or regulatory problems at present.

Details:

6/30 shares outstanding: 722.2
6/30 potentially dilutive: 454.6

Subsequent events:

8/5 offering: 21.8m shares + 5.3m warrants
Debt conversion: 8.8m shares + 2.5m warrants
8/5 options grants: 160.7m comprised of 26m directors, 31.4m officers for past service, 86.7m current and ongoing, 16.6m staff and consultants.
7/2 Linda self-dealing: 15.2m warrants for "forebearance"


In the 5 weeks since the quarter closed, subsequent events issued securities representing 30% of quarter end shares oustanding.

Let's talk warrants now that the 10-Q is out.

Back in springtime, there was a discussion of warrants exercised, expiring, extended; particularly the impact on potentially dilutive securities. Now we have conclusive answers.

Warrants from March 10-Q: 365.7m
Warrants from June 10-Q: 323.9m

So a drop of 41.8m which reflects all warrant activity in Q2.

1) As to the question of whether suspended warrants are reflected in "potentially dilutive securities", yes they are.

2) Someone's accountant was claiming 220m expirations in Q2. That claim was refuted with vigor, and correctly so.

On the Balance Sheet some of you might have noticed a large increase in "Warrant Liability". That reflects the price increase in nwbo shares during Q2, repricing some warrant strikes downward, and the time extension of some warrants. It's a noncash line, so not really a concern.

Pretty much boiler plate. Here is similar language from 424B5 filings by a couple of companies on my bioscam watch list; CYTR, AVXL.

"To facilitate the offering of securities, certain persons participating in the offering may engage in transactions that stabilize, maintain, or otherwise affect the price of the securities. This may include over-allotments or short sales of the securities, which involve the sale by persons participating in the offering of more securities than we sold to them. In these circumstances, these persons would cover such over-allotments or short positions by making purchases in the open market or by exercising their over-allotment option, if any. In addition, these persons may stabilize or maintain the price of the securities by bidding for or purchasing securities in the open market or by imposing penalty bids, whereby selling concessions allowed to dealers participating in the offering may be reclaimed if securities sold by them is repurchased in connection with stabilization transactions. The effect of these transactions may be to stabilize or maintain the market price of the securities at a level above that which might otherwise prevail in the open market. These transactions may be discontinued at any time."

"We may grant underwriters who participate in the distribution of securities an option to purchase additional securities to cover overallotments, if any, in connection with the distribution. Any underwriter may engage in overallotment, stabilizing transactions, short covering transactions and penalty bids in accordance with SEC orders, rules and regulations and applicable law. To the extent permitted by applicable law and SEC orders, rules and regulations, an overallotment involves sales in excess of the offering size, which create a short position. Stabilizing transactions permit bids to purchase the underlying security so long as the stabilizing bids do not exceed a specified maximum. To the extent permitted by applicable law and SEC orders, rules and regulations, short covering transactions involve purchases of the securities in the open market after the distribution is completed to cover short positions. Penalty bids permit the underwriters to reclaim a selling concession from a dealer when the securities originally sold by the dealer is purchased in a covering transaction to cover short positions. Those activities may cause the price of the Common Stock to be higher than it would otherwise be. If commenced, the underwriters may discontinue any of the activities at any time."

They've issued more securities that authorized (on a fully diluted basis) in the past, so do not think there is any reluctance to do so again.

Remember them selling convertible Preferred stock, except that it was not convertible until shares were freed up?

"The Series B Preferred Stock will be convertible into common stock, but only when common stock is available or after 6 months following issuance."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420418002318/tv483373_8k.htm

You predicted 6/21/20 in Evaluate's contest, so clearly you have yet to realize that everything takes longer with nwbo.

They've announced mushy lock. No hard lock yet. So nwbo likely still has several months to finance prior to TLD, and will need more $ than they raised today.

nwbo needs the cash, so I agree that raising it is a good thing.

As far as the last raise before TLD, we've heard that a couple dozen times. I'll bet there is another raise (and possibly several) prior to TLD.

My 7/1/2021 prediction in Evaluate's contest is still alive.

There are no naked shorts.

Few of the 11m legal shorts are speculative in nature. Almost all are likely hedged by warrants. You can see this by looking at the history of short interest.

2020 through April, short interest was dropping to the 5m range. Why? Because the warrants needed to hedge that position were getting close to expiration.

Subsequently, short interest has risen above 11m. Why? Warrants were extended, so the short positions could be hedged again.

If nwbo stock rises significantly, a hedged short can cover by exercising warrants. No damage. No short squeeze.

You are railing against speculative shorts who simply do not exist.

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you" - Joseph Heller (Catch-22)

No, 11m shares short is just noise. But that doesn't stop it from being a constant topic on this board.

I blame FINRA-banned former analyst Larry Smith for bringing up the ridiculous notion of naked shorting of nwbo.

Why anyone listens to Smith is another mystery. Taking investment advice from him is the equivalent of taking legal advice from a disbarred lawyer.

Short interest had dropped into the 5-6 million range by April, 2020. It only bumped up again as warrants were extended.

I don't think that is just a coincidence.

You're comparing relatively unknown nwbo to entities like the L.A. Lakers and Harvard University that returned PPP funds.

The program was designed for small firms, and 12 employees with under $1m per quarter in revenue fits quite well.

nwbo should have applied for PPP, and full credit to them if they did.

A month of PPP covering payroll, plus the June warrant exercising, might avoid a round of dilution.

I agree that's not significant in the long run, but helps in the short run. Certainly useful for a firm that manages its cash month to month.

You have become quite the optimist.

On planet nwbo, multi-week processes can easily become multi-month processes. They can also multiply like tribbles.

A few of those and my July 1, 2021 guess is still in play.

nwbo's price action today is all part of Linda's master plan. Do not expect to understand that as it is beyond the ken of mere mortals.

Also, do not pay any attention to the woman behind the curtain.

No seminars, but happy to answer any questions about stock-based charitable contributions, which I strongly support.

You should think about instructions to the charity. Perhaps donor recommends immediate sale. The issue is valuation. With immediate sale, you can agree that the value of your donation is the value realized on sale by the non-profit.

Technically the value should be based on receipt, but that is challenging with a large donation or liquidity issues, and outside the expertise of some charities.

If they don't receive many stock donations, you might have to nag a bit to get the process managed well.

Donating appreciated shares is the tax efficient approach. Assuming US taxation:

Make sure the charity is properly registered as a 501c3. Ask for a copy of their Form 990 and/or check them out on Guidestar. That's minimum due diligence for non-profits.

Ask if they are set up to receive stock donations. You'll need to send your broker a Letter of Authorization which requires some info from the recipient. It should include:

Your Name as shown on account
Account number
Stock to transfer (name and ticker or CUSIP)
Number of shares to transfer (and ideally number remaining as a check)

Recipient info:
Name
Address
Phone
DTC
Broker
AccountID

"... medics in the know are pushing their patients to get this treatment"

Really? Doctors are pushing patients toward dcvax-l treatment that is currently unavailable? Even when they know they can only provide another courses of action? Teasing with an unavailable treatment sounds great for patient morale.

You are definitely suggesting something - a wildly optimistic point of view on pent up UK demand for dcvax that is not supported by facts.

GBM patients don't just sit on the shelf like widgets in inventory.

Are you suggesting that they are just sitting in Dr. Ashkan's waiting room hoping for dcvax?

Probably not, which means that they are pursuing SOC or whatever trials or treatment is available.

Do you think they abandon that treatment for a not-yet-approved dcvax? If some would, then would NHS fund that?

That's without even considering whether these potential patients had surgery, and had sufficient tumor material saved to make dcvax.

It took nwbo over a decade to recruit 331 patients for the P3 trial. No new patients for 5 years in that trial. That is not a state of affairs that lends itself to visibility or excitement.

Yet you believe they can magically find 35-50 patients per month, prior to approval, and get paid for treating those patients?

I think that is a wee bit optimistic...

P(at least one succeeds) = 1 - P(all fail)

Based on your wildly optimistic assumptions, that would be

1 - (.3 * .3 * .3) = .973 or 97.3%

If you prefer a sports analogy, it's the same math as a 70% free throw shooter with 3 attempts.

You are making the very questionable assumption that all P3 trials have the same probability of success.

Do you seriously believe that a tiny company, in its first FDA experience, has the same success rate as Merck or Pfizer?

My take on Cofer Black is that he is retired and selling his rolodex, with some suspect judgment as to his compatriots.

Regarding nwbo, I've seen no evidence that he has taken an active role in anything beyond collecting options. He is only listed on one Board committee (Conflicts, which includes Related Party transactions).

I hope that folks have been joking about Black going all CIA on nefarious anti-nwbo factions, but you never know with this board. It would be sad if anyone actually believed that fiction.

Delusional.

They have enough blended blinded data to do all sorts of work on OS, but don't bother with the primary endpoint. "PFS has not yet been evaluated...". That is BURYING the primary endpoint, likely due to low expectations, to focus on something they think might be more promising.

How many times have you seen another company publish without evaluating the primary endpoint?

Tweaks to the process might explain why nwbo added the section on "equivalency studies" to its list of potential risks in SEC filings.

Changes in manufacturing methods for DCVax-L could require us to conduct equivalency studies and/or additional clinical trials.

nwbo management also gets their warrants and options for free.

If it weren't for people commenting outside their expertise, this would be a largely empty forum.

An endpoint succeeds if the trial produces statistically significant unblinded positive results.

In 2017 nwbo had accrued sufficient events that they could have done PFS analysis. They chose to continue rather than stop and analyze data then. They cannot have "met" the PFS endpoint because they have never published data for that endpoint.

ROTFL. The primary endpoint was mentioned once in a 30+ page paper. That is BURIED, at least by any rational definition.

July 10 is both National Kitten Day and National Pina Colada Day. Guessing the latter is more relevant here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings

I suggest you read the sections on Management and Investigations.

And yes, being a member of the Board of a corrupt foreign company is stunningly poor judgment for a former CIA official.