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.
Prime properties in desirable areas to live capitalize on the often overlapping in remote work acceptance and prosperity of many of those workers. I think it will be harder to reduce or eliminate 1031
like kind exchanges than increase LT capital gains rates.
Thx Redneck. What do they know that the market hasn’t figured out hmmmmm…
Sir Pump u always bring a smile to my face very glad to have u and that your subscription is not tied to your use of consonants!! /s/ “A Proud Cheerleader” a/k/a and without adopting the entirety of the accompanying political philosophies, “From each according to one’s expertise, knowledge and experience, to each according to their interest, due diligence and judgment.” GLTA
An argument may be made that once certified the device may justify its own company. With NWBO providing the test bed/proving ground. Hopefully, a very high visibility testing.
DD - amazing dd. Also, good questions. Thanks.
Ski Utah to skitahoe get well soon!!
Hope I do not know deeply of approvals but I believe there cannot be “too much” clarity or statistical validation. No matter what TLD shows there will be powerful conventional medical, pharma, insurance and other ppl, experts and enterprises or even industries interested in sowing doubt, see iwasadiver post 382844 a few minutes ago. Not to take sides but if millions of ppl can be convinced that it’s safer not to receive a COVID vaccination what about the far more complex analysis here? GLTA
Hope - I of course agree with your sentiments toward disclosure for patients. My post was a response to a post about the investment aspect of the company and delay there is a different matter altogether. Also in the FWIW category I said that delay will be overlooked by “most” and I specifically had in mind patients and their families. In fact my wife last night watched the 2018 PR and we discussed exactly the question of delay from the patient perspective. LP certainly, and others including LG, have dedicated huge portions of their successful careers to the company mission and you will never convince me that they care less about getting the technology out for the sake of patients than me - or you. Which is as it should be.
I am positive your legitimate concerns weigh heavily on them daily or hourly and I am as confident that they are making the best decisions possible in regard to advancement of patient interests as I am glad that I am not in the position that they are in.
Happy - ur pessimism will be proven right or wrong by TLD and related. Ur proffered justifications however are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
Also I disagree with ur quote:
“Obviously though, given the well established pattern of negative conduct and an unwillingness to admit it is even a problem, NWBO management would either have to acknowledge past failings, commit to change and then take a concrete step in that direction or if they are scared of liability then just take concrete steps in”
I feel confident that a positive TLD followed or preceded by a top journal peer reviewed article discussing groundbreaking medical news, and the undoubted resultant increase in SP, will be an adequate justification for delay to most interested persons.
Hey ‘88 and All: I came to the game a bit late acquires a few shares between .34 and .26 but mostly very much higher. I reached my acquisition goal yesterday and did not plan to continue purchases. However I am now thinking I might need to pick up just a few more on any dips for some post TLD cash for taxes and to maintain my primary holding for the long term. PS: KIPK and sir pump: LOVE ur consistent enthusiasm!
MI thanks for the earlier comment. I will disagree tho about a merger with CRL. NWBO Management IMO want to be separate for a lot of reasons but most of those boil down to normal corporate liability avoidance - preservation and protection of the principal assets of NWBO (IP and research capabilities) that again IMO are far more valuable than manufacturing capability which, even if bespoke, is replicable. I think this plan is shown in the Cognate contract history and you and I agree that apparently has been continued and adjusted as matters progress. And other breadcrumbs.
Ski be well recover well best wishes
Exactly. To my earlier post answering ATL’s question this very much appears to be the NWBO strategy.
ATL I do not follow closely enough to be able to respond to the point that EX made in response to my analysis I posted to you (EX’s point being that NWBO disclosures referenced the Cognate Service Agreement at one point and later did not). However I believe your conclusion that the Cognate/NWBO SA and related agreements (or updated versions of those agreements) remain in place is correct and that those agreements were and are material assets acquired by Charles River intended to serve U.S. manufacturing requirements following FDA approval.
Small contribution compared to your many. Be well.
Ex not dodging I was just answering questions posed by another. However I would expect other contracts of a similar nature and effect replaced the one you reference likely now or later between NWBO and Charles River.
Flip while my prediction of TLD by May 31 has not been proven wrong I concede the high probability that your point will prove correct. I am with iwasadiver in taking advantage of the extra time to continue to acquire. GLTA and Happy Memorial Day with special regard to those who served and their families and friends who shared their sacrifices.
ATL: Cognate Service Agreement Questions.
At the risk of "coming out" (as a lawyer) I reviewed the Cognate Service Agreement ("SA") linked to your post.
Background: The SA refers to a prior "Conversion and Lock-Up Agreement" between Cognate and NWBO, the expansion of services beyond those anticipated in that Lock-Up, and the resultant perceived need to extend the scope of that Lock-Up. The SA is part of a multiple-contract replacement to the Lock-Up, other contracts specifically referenced being (1) an Ancillary Services Agreement directed at shipping, distribution, cryopreservation and storages services, (2) a Manufacturing Expansion Services Agreement, directed at oversight, and management and support of third party manufacturing outside of the U.S., and (3) a Quality Agreement to establish manufacturing and processing quality standards in compliance with applicable U.S. or foreign legal requirements.
Q1: You are correct that the SA will not expire until "five (5) years after the first commercial sales of DCVax?-L Products...". "(C)ommercial sales do not include "compassionate use [or] hospital [use] exemption." The only exception is that the SA may be "terminated earlier" in the event of an "uncured" "material breach" of the SA. Likely the parties expect that during that five year period they will have enough transactional experience to extend the relationship.
Q2: You are correct that all terms and conditions of the SA are binding on a successor including Charles River Laboratories. Further, NWBO had the right under the SA to block the transfer of the SA from Cognate to CRL under the Successors and Assigns provision of the SA. From the fact of the sale and related public announcements it is a fact that NWBO did not exercise its right to prevent the sale of Cognate's SA obligations to new ownership.
GLTA Patients, Families and Longs
Horse I was with u on SNO. Oh well was not to be. It will be excellent when TLD happens.
Flip- Nov TLD was the original plan until Ashkan finagled a top 3 publication which was too good an opportunity to pass up.
Wink.
Captain O I disagree. I believe warrant holders are maintaining a price at reasonable buy- in levels perhaps (speculating) allowing for the opportunity for persons prohibited from buying to have a chance to do so upon TLD.
It’s a reasonable explanation IMO.
Yes. Thanks. GLTAL
MI delivers a DDT
DocLee - Ha
Gary - maybe we can learn from the difficult, amazing path which the DC Vax process and it’s researchers and advocates have had to survive and more to come. GLTU, Patients and Families, and all others hopeful a new treatment modality is on the horizon.
As a community we seem to be unable to accept a small number of adverse consequences or outcomes even when waiting to make a further determination comes at the knowable cost of accepting a greater number of adverse consequences or outcomes, and where those outcomes might be more adverse.
I understand that taking no prophylactic action and accepting a random adverse consequence as “fate” might to some seem preferable than suffering an adverse consequence arising from that prophylactic action, but one needs to consider the probabilities and level of adverse effect.
KIPK I recall you may have expressed this opinion once or twice. I appreciate the consistent comments very much. With you as well. GLTAL
Yes. The whole purpose of the NDA is to prevent use or disclosure of inside information which is disclosed pursuant to the NDA protection. Plus trading by the recipient of that information would be an easily proven securities violation.
VI yes. One time their hope is going to materialize!
Red Hand - at the risk of cheerleading, what is the point of extending warrants to May 31? Is that a head fake? If so it’s the first intentional one it appears. Or maybe b/c - in line with no TLD at ASCO - May 31 is long enough?
VI agree TLD tied to publication. I had some thought earlier that BoD might feel pressure to report before ASM but that now seems highly improbable. Interesting times …
pgsd thx for adding information to the discussion
reacho - great question this had never occurred to me, Oh Danish One thank u as usual for your DD
Viking yesterday or so you cautioned about possibly over-enthusiastic predictions of TLD announcement. I didn’t fully understand that comment, nor this one, but perhaps that is my misunderstanding.
Are u saying that once TLD is provided to the company it must be released? (You said the company “has no control” over release). Or was the meaning of your statement that the company cannot speed up the process of receiving TLD? Either is comprehended in your comment.
It has been my understanding that once the company has TLD it may disclose a positive result at any time. (I don’t mean to raise the dispute whether there is a manditory 4-day rule for negative material news - my reading is that a disclosure failure there risks liability). Am I correct that a positive result does not have a manditory disclosure period?
TIA and More GLTAL
Marzan - pretty prescient advice! GO MINIONS!
Stonk hopefully that is the saddest story I’ll hear for a while.
Captain that is the deep evilness of the game!!
OK my group which includes posters who u would recognize are convinced that the direct cause of the SP increase was the hole in one I got yesterday at 4:00 pm EST. Who am I to say that they are wrong?
Cognate- ATL and bio thank you for both explanations which enlighten me I see the potential conflict question being posed and have just assumed that this is not what management is about. But I have not spent the time to study the various threads to understand the explanation. A small but certainly material issue that I now can feel that I have a sufficient understanding to out questioners in the fud column (not you hank - others tho. You raised the point that bio and ATL answered).
Nice day today looking for .215 cents in multiples soon to come. PS in the FWIW column I put my 2cents on Tuesday before the open
GLTAL