Why would you even put $40 to $50 out there? There is no rationale basis for it. The fact that the company had to do an offering on terrible terms at the lowest ever stock price makes it that much more likely we will never get back to our $30 high given they diluted a full 20% of the company at $2.

Agreed, I could see a deal on US and EU AXAL mono therapy and combo rights.

"It would seem like a win-win deal with BMY for 1) worldwide AXAL rights"

That's impossible, because remember O'Connor did crap deals for very little money already giving away exclusive AXAL rights in deals for Asia, India, Canada and South America.

What basis do you have for saying they could have gotten more if they had sold it a year later?

"They sold it prematurely, and got a fraction of the money they would have gotten if they were to sell the entire NEO program a year later."

Thanks Bourdon. So do Tony look at you perplexed, scratch his head and say "not sure what you mean about getting the stock price back up, why does that matter?"

There are only about 12,000 new cases of cervical in the US each year, which I believe is what the FDA based the orphan status on.

Confirms O'Connors strategy of holding out from licensing AXAL early on in order to get big bucks later was misguided versus ADRO doing a large global money deal early with j&j to monetize some shareholder value.

His unethical behavior cost shareholders dearly.

He just posted a link saying Sellas was moving forward with its planned LLM trial, has nothing to do with his credibility.

I agree with your last point. The valuation is way to low for the pipeline and clincial progress. We are paying for management mistakes that the market forces took advantage of that but I think we are all still here because we believe the company is worth a lot more than $100m. That said they just sold 20% of the co mpany for all all time low price. Another dilution like that is not sustainable if the company want to create a shareholder ROI so now is make or break for the compnay to either deliver a deal or sell outright. Otherwise it begs the question whether investors benefit at all from more dilution on terrible terms or just employees.

I did expect a deal. I was wrong.

Whereas you would say "I only expected a deal until it became clear there was no deal then I didn't expect a deal so I was right."

You said that up until the time you were proven wrong.

Agreed, and the fact the comonay hired a comp consultant survey to conclude the exec team was underpaid and got raises at the end of the fiscal given the backdrop of the huge loss in shareholder value was just plain wrong.

No I'm just humble and recognize when I was wrong.

Shortly before O'Connor was pushed out, he said the tutes thought O'Connor was doing a fine job.

Oh boy, another prediction...to follow a long line of other predictions you have had that turned out wrong.

It's easy not to care about the shareholder value destroyed if one is not a shareholder and has no skin in the game.

Only shareholders are mad. Employees like yourself are indifferent to the shareholder value erosion, but fear if a sale happens you will be out of a job, hence support continuation if the status quo.

Yea, it's out of place for shareholders to be mad about a silly 80% loss of shareholder value.

Not going to sell for peanuts? Well, they just sold 20% of the company at an all time low price, a price 70% lower than when Lombardo stepped into the CEO role eight months. That alone is reason showing Lombardo should step down and either the company be sold or the Board hire a real CEO, which they should have had someone already in lime when they pushed O'Connor out. That raises the question of whether they ever will hire a CEO or if Lombardo is setting up for a sale.

Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing and question the agenda of someone who thinks everything has gone well when the stock has fallen 75% in the last year.

Is that a fact? Just like your previous assertions that tutes weren't selling because unlike retail investors they're patient. Well, the trail of 13F filings over the last two years prove that assertion was wrong, as a number of our largest holders did in fact sell.

I think for some folks (i.e., the deniers) the reality has sunk in that investors who recapitalized ADXS over the last four years, pouring more than $200 million into the company at an average price of $12, have lost 80% of their value, and it's not because of manipulation but rather cumulative mis-management of the company, including self-dealing for insider financial gain and irresponsibly high cash burn with no focused or coherent business strategy. Fast forward to now, investors after witnessing the debacle of the last four years said they require a huge discount/lowest ever stock price of $2 to invest more funds in the company. Now as a Phase 3 company with broad pipeline we have shrunk to a $100 million market cap, despite having raised a total of $250 million with this latest capital raise over the last four and a half years.

Now you are making a different point. Your first assertion was factually incorrect. Please stick with the facts.

I believe the proxy record date was before the offering so the 10m new shares would not have a vote.

I think HOT could able be subject to a deal. As ADXS was preparing for the NEO IND, they struck a deal with Amgen. The same could happen with HOT.

I don't think management sees it as them being put in a corner. I read the call transcript and was somewhat surprised in Lombardo's tone, which came across as optimistic, confident, and proud of ADXS' achievements, arguably overconfident and a bit out of touch considering that he has presided over another 70% erosion in shareholder value. From his standpoint, he may see success as simply keeping the lights at the company on because that means management gets to keep their jobs and salaries, and he even gave the management team raises last year based on a comp survey he commissioned despite shareholders getting creamed. The right thing to do IMO is to extend the warrants, because the investors who supported the company over the last four years and recapitalized it under O'Connor pouring more than $200 million at an average cost of $12 now are sitting on lowest ever $2 stock price "despite" all the achievements Lombardo cited and because of a series of poor management decisions at the company.

I did catch that James, very encouraging if they could use the current Phae 3 for Europe and not have to run another one.

When you dilute 20% of the company at an all time low stock price that lowers the target fair value share price. Granted, 20% dilution on a $20 price target should lower the target to $16, but the analysts are also likely factoring in the management missteps and loss of market confidence that they will be able to get any construct to the finish line.

That's a different point. One could also project if hadn't sat on his hands for 8 months he could have sold shares closer to $7. He likely waited because he thought he could strike a lucrative licensing deal but it turns out demand wasn't there, and imvesotes required literally an all time low stock price to invest more in the company, so IMO to say we will ultimately sell the company for 15x how the market is currently valuing us is a stretch. Even Cantor lowers their $19 target to $5 after this massive dilution on worst ever terms.

Attil I hope you are right but realistically I'm not expecting the stock to get back to or be sold for as high as $30. Think about, Lombardo just sold 20% of the company for an insulting $2 a share. What makes you think he will ever be in the position to sell the remaining 80% for 15x the terms of the deal he just did.

That doesn't reflect the downgrade to $5. The $21 consensus says the lowest price target is $18.

I believe they said they filed a report to the FDA on February 27 regarding the patient's death, not that the patient died on February 27. Not sure how long they have to file these reports, but the patient could have died before and ADXS disclosed it to these new investors that there could be a potential hold based on the death, which would have explained why the investors required such a steep discount at $2 a share to buy in.

I agree with your statement. In Tony's comment on discussions extending beyond Europe he referenced "interest in the platform" which can be interpreted to mean beyond AXAL to also include the other franchises. It's unfortunate that the stock has sunk to as low as it has, because it means a lower buyout price, but at this point it doesn't seem to make sense that it's been going on nine months and the company hasn't found a permanent CEO. Another reason why the current discussions may include a buyout scenario is because Amgen is chock full of cash with the tax bill AND ADXS is dirt cheap now. Amgen believes in NEO so why wouldn't they want to buy the company now at a bargain price. Best case scenario is that Tony uses leverage if say he's in negotiations with three entities so that whoever buys ADXS has to pay a premium of several hundred percent over the current price to outbid the rest.

"Per Lombardo, those negotiations for AXAL rights are likely to extend beyond the EU region, and IMO a buyout will also be on the table."

I could see an entity like Amgen stepping up and acquiring ADXS at this point. The bad news for us is that based on historical premiums, I think what we could expect in a buyout at today's prices would be no more than the $6 to $10 range. That actually might be the best outcome we should expect, unfortunately, because if they don't sell the company and continue as they have been, management's track record in terms of eroding value of the capital they've raised has been terrible.

Keith, you can make light of this setback and continue to pound your chest "Come on Tony, $50 buyout" but that does not change the fact that the stock is down 70% since Tony started last July and one of the few Wall Street analysts who assesses the company's valuation just downgraded her forecast from $19 to $5. Your $50 buyout chant is baseless and doesn't fit the reality of the company's situation.

That's unfortunate Cantor downgraded ADXS' price target to $5. Not sure what her target was before, but it must have been somewhere around the $20 since the low end of analysts' forecast according to Yahoo has been $18. Did you see her rationale for her new price target? Granted, the company's diluted shareholders by 20% in this last offering at an all time low price, but factoring that into a $20 price target moves it down to $16 (subtract 20% from $20). So why does she think the company is only worth $5 now? Did she reduce her revenue projections for AXAL because of the implied lower demand and more modest trial data since no BP has stepped up to pay ADXS in a deal yet?

Agreed, that would be insider trading.

Perhaps the same thing as Lombardo...nothing?

I don't know. You could also ask, why would he do an offering at literally the companys all time historical low stock price of $2.