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 have been lots of posts about a derivative lawsuit.
It sounds like there has been one in existence for three years (from the Financial statements) addressing the same issues raised here:
"On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al. , C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors. On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint alleged that our directors and executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for our benefit. The defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on February 19, 2016. We believe that the Amended Complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. In addition, due to the early stage of this matter, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter."
The opinion questioned was that there was even a remote connection between Watson (IBM) and PPHM.
You are absolutely correct that Watson's age has nothing to do with any connection between the two.
Perhaps you should read the posts again, IMO. I did not express an opinion, i asked for a shred of evidence to support a link between the two, but thanks for your input.
Again I ask for one iota of evidence to link Watson and IBM to PPHM.
That makes tons of sense to anyone that is willing to view this situation with an open mind.
Talking about all that Watson can do has NOTHING to do with PPHM.
So you can provide verifiable evidence to that effect?
Please do so.
Now IBM is our new partner? Really?
CP, wrong!
The information today was definitely subset based. To say otherwise ignores the facts that came public today.
Watson has been an IBM development for something like two decades.
There is, IMO, absolutely no chance on this world that it has any collaboration with PPHM.
I appreciate your continued enthusiasm but let's be realistic. Please supply one iota of evidence of your claim (and I don't mean an abstract "puzzle piece" or "dot").
"Re: biopharm Post# 275383
How much data from Peregrines trials have been transferred into Watson for lung cancer?".
Absolutely none.
Apparently the "Investing World" doesn't understand (or does understand and doesn't agree with you) what is in the PR.
Are they all wrong and a few posters here are spot-on?
Hard to believe after three years of steady decline.
CP, it was ALWAYS part of the discussion!
In addition, now you reference subsets but a week ago said that subsets were not part of the equation!
I appreciate your enthusiasm (as well as Bio's and Hope's) and still am holding but tend to look more at the realistic situation that we face.
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Reports The Addition Of Bavituximab To Docetaxel Did Not Result In Improvement Of Study's Primary Endpoint Of Overall Survival
http://www.benzinga.com/news/16/10/8545580/peregrine-pharmaceuticals-reports-the-addition-of-bavituximab-to-docetaxel-did-no
Yes, except PPHM BOD are not quite famous for holding a veil of silence to benefit anyone (unless it benefits them).
I sit back and watch and truly do hope they succeed (I also am down 6 figures, which someone said earlier and was challenged on). I do hope for the success of Bavi but to hang hopes on ESMO for earth shattering news that will propel us to the Stars is a pie-in-the-sky view (IMO), and is not realistic.
I believe that a RS is imminent, and (though I wish otherwise) that at this point in time, it is required.
It's like pulling a splinter.
It's gonna hurt but is necessary under the circumstances.
I'm already down 75%. I'd rather lose the last 25% than to try to sell to recover peanuts and then see them succeed.
I think that the current BOD's running Peregrine is like giving my 23 YO Son a Ferrari to drive.
Great Vehicle.....Sorry Driver!
We're good Wook!
Stocked up on liquor and food!
I think that what he was trying to say is that a RS is imminent.
I don't like it either, but anyone that says otherwise is not being realistic (IMO).
I, like many here, am cautiously optimistic about the Biometric PR and about the 10/10 presentation.
I am disgusted with management but still hold the belief that Bavi may succeed, and the development of Avid has been a positive step towards success.
If they are on the path to profitability the RS will not cause it to fail even if it occurs.
If this is more "smoke and mirrors" we are doomed either way.
Sounds familiar......
Intra-Cellular Therapies plummeted 69 percent after the market closed Wednesday. The biopharmaceutical company announced top-line results from the second phase 3 clinical trial on a treatment for schizophrenia. The medicine at the center of the trial, ITI-007, "did not separate from the placebo ... in part due to an unusually high placebo response."
Interview with King:
http://www.cgteurope.com/Content/Steven-King
"Here is the thing...not one current investor made the decision to invest based on 2000 stock prices or percieved management decisions from that time".
I've been here for a few years and still sometimes feel like a Newbie.
I think that there are a large amount of investors here that have been here for that long.
Big Sales Here!
TD Ameritrade shows not a single share has traded in the last week!
Go DKGR!
Agreed.
1.4 million traded in 15 minutes.
I would hardly call that "no volume".
"the expenses incurred to produce a product go into inventory until that product is sold."
Again, you didn't understand the context of my question.
YES, if a product was produced your statements are correct!
My question dealt with whether a marketable product was actually produced or if the "Process Validation Runs" we're done to satisfy regulatory requirements without producing "Inventory" which would show up on the Balance Sheet (in that quarter) to produce an offsetting asset.
I went back and read-read my post that you are disagreeing with. I'm not sure how to make my question more clearer to you.
No, I absolutely did not say that!
A Company cannot go "willy-nilly" go from Cash Basis to Accrual Basis from Quarter to Quarter, much less on the same Financial Statement!
Apparently I did not express my thought clearly (at least to you).
Thanks. If so, then the theory that expenses incurred this quarter would be recorded as revenue until next quarter is not correct. It should record recognizable assets in the quarter it was produced, and not AR in the next quarter.
CJ, do the "Process Validation Runs" produce a marketable product (later) if validated or is it just "practice" to satisfy regulatory requirements?
I ask because if it IS ""practice" then our expenses were elevated not only by operating without selling but also by the time spent with PPE to validate our facility (versus it sitting empty).
I'm thinking that if it was to satisfy requirements, our AVID expenses were swollen by approval (rightfully required) but were a sunk cost to reach production and will disappear upon approval.
"They are not operating on a cash basis".
Exactly!
The expenses incurred are reported at the time that they are incurred but the revenue is not recorded until invoiced (increasing AR on the balance sheet at that time, and assets as well).
I agree with NoMo. I think (if what they said is true) that the revenue in future quarters will be larger because a portion of the expense were recorded in prior quarters.
It would make more sense to do a Company buy back.
If paid in salary or bonus, it becomes subject to taxes, so the amount of stock purchased is less (it also becomes an expense to the Company, but without profits they don't need additional expenses).
If the net result to the stock price is that it rises, the Officers and BOD will still realize a gain on their existing shares and their portion of the Company.
I'm not sure either MC but I heard it was going to recover from being worth 15% of what it was before the massive reverse split that occurred.
Did that happen?
Is it even worth 1/3 of what it was before the RS?
CP, I don't think that is correct. At TDA and Fidelity, daily red or green is based relative to the stocks closing price the prior trading day.
After hours on the prior day or Pre-Market on the same day have no relevance to displaying red or green.
A simple Yes or No is an answer. After parsing all of your paragraphs, I see you agree.
You could have just said Yes.
Absolutely agree!
That's why they hold huge data conferences in the pharmaceutical environment....so they can talk about failed trials with drugs that will never be used again...
LOL
After all that typing, you didn't answer the question.
Isn't the primary purpose of studies to gather data from the Patients being studied?
Just like the DoDo!
"It is data mining because they are looking after the fact at the patients"
Isn't that the primary reason for doing studies?
I guess I'm missing something here.
This is not correct.
A corporations decision to report on a Cash or Accrual basis is established with the IRS and can be changed (difficultly) through IRS approval.
Don't believe me? Try having a company on either basis and then swap to the other after a year or more and file your return.
The IRS will be knocking at your door!
Car, I understand that part. What I asked for clarification on was that the post stated that the assets on the Balance Sheet (Plant and Equipment) were a combination of "hard" and "soft" assets and that the "soft" assets portion was worth pennies on the dollar.
It was in reference to Tangible Assets on the Balance Sheet, not Goodwill or Customer Base.
Still waiting for your explanation of the difference between "soft" assets and "hard" assets and why one is more valuable than the other.
I've looked, but other than your posts the Internet seems to have no knowledge of this "freakin" little ole phenomena that you chose to share with the board.
From 7/15 to 9/8 is less than two months, much less a quarter.
Considering that a CC and Quarterly Financials were imminent, stopping ATM sales for a few weeks does not constitute a trend after years of bleeding shares to feed the BOD.
Negative, a company establishes itself as cash or accrual with the IRS and must report as such. To suggest that "all companies are accrual" is false.
The ability of a Company to report on a Cash or Accrual basis is determined by their status with the IRS And is strictly regulated.
Apparently, you did not understand my post.
Look it up.
CJ, I don't understand all that. To post, you are making a point.
Please explain.
"Wow! All of these financials are accrual. Sales are from one date to another. A/R is as of a date. You need to look at change in A/R from beginning of a period to end. You should stop with this"
Yes, if past performance leads one to believe in the accuracy of the statements. Anyone can state future profits and show them on a Balance Sheet.
Like Jerry McGuire said, "Show me the Money!".