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.
SVL and insurance:
Just heard interview on CNBC with representative of American Insurance Association re flood exclusion. Didn't catch all of the details, but my sense was that the insurance industry has no intention of paying for flood damage, whatever the cause.
As a legal matter, the situation is fairly typical. The policy provides coverage (hurricane), but then has an exclusion from that coverage (flood) -- not an unusual situation. If you have flood damage, whatever the cause, you are not insured.
Steve
larrybaz re SVL:
Don't know anything about SVL, but the tension between hurricane coverage and flood exclusion exists in almost all policies:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05251/567907.stm
Regarding Katrina, Scruggs was interviewed on CNN just yesterday, and apparently has "thousands" of clients already. He has set up a separate 800 number just to take incoming calls.
Given the amount involved, especially with Rita following, insurance companies may well dig in their heels, public relations notwithstanding.
Steve
VPHM and HCV-796:
From a knowledgeable poster on Yahoo, information on phase 1b test for HCV-796.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7077380&tid=vphm&sid=707...
Steve
"Still looking at a large long-term supply gap"
Article on papers submitted by Robert Wallace, a uranium market analyst, and Stephen Kidd of the World Nuclear Association at "Uranium Day" conference in London this week:
http://www.mineweb.net/sections/energy/489840.htm
And, from the same conference, "Junior uranium plays -- timing it right?" discussing IUC and Uramin:
http://www.mineweb.net/sections/energy/489841.htm
Steve
VPHM:
"ViroPharma to Present at the 2005 UBS Global Life Sciences Conference
EXTON, Pa., Sept. 20, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) -- ViroPharma Incorporated (Nasdaq:VPHM) today announced that it will present at 2005 UBS Global Life Sciences Conference, at 11:00 A.M. Eastern Time on Monday September 26. The conference is being held at the Grand Hyatt, New York.
ViroPharma's presentation will be webcast live for investors through www.viropharma.com, and available for replay until October 29, 2005."
Steve
earthfarm:
Which would you buy now if you owned none?
Thanks much.
Steve
"Sprott's bullish on uranium as cheap, reliable energy source"
Article on comments of Sprott analyst Bambrough at recent uranium conference:
http://www.mineweb.net/sections/energy/489364.htm
Steve
johnlw re Uranium Exploration:
I don't know about 10 baggers, but in general beg to differ.
When you have 300 posts per day on this board by at least 50 different posters, you will know you've hit the mainstream. Uranium is the oil of the future. When that sinks in to the public consciousness, things will really start to heat up.
I agree with stylecounciler: Dines is as much a hindrance to general market interest as a help. Perceived as a bit of a flake.
As for jrs., some won't pan out. But some will go nuts even from here. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how to value them, or choose between them. Hence, I read this board.
Seems to me the spot price is headed to US$33-US$35 by the end of 2005; if so, even CCO and DEN will finish strong.
FWIW, from a newbie. Thanks to the regulars here for all the informative posts.
Steve
NAUG:
Announces new contract:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7764518
Steve
VPHM:
Forbes discussion of Piper Jaffray target price increase:
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/09/15/viropharma-lilly-eli-biotech-0915markets15.html?partner=yah...
Steve
stock_peeker re CGHIE:
I have a very small position, but have been a bit mystified by the price action during the past couple of months. I interpreted the news the same way: they are trying to signal that the deal is real.
Steve
RGEN:
Decided to sell RGEN today after all. Needed funds to buy additional CHAR shares.
Steve
stock_peeker re CGHIE:
Do you still own some of this? Hard to know how much to believe with this company, but interesting announcement today:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7749912
Steve
VPHM and Pleconaril:
According to a knowledgeable poster on Yahoo, there is reason to think SP may make its plans for Pleconaril known on 11/1/05:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7077380&tid=vphm&sid=707...
Steve
NAUG:
Navicom Unveils New GPS Personal Locator Device:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050914/nyw078.html?.v=24
Steve
RGEN:
I spoke today to Laura Whitehouse, Vice President of Market Development at Repligen, (781) 250-0111, ext. 2306, about the potential license agreement with BMY that is mentioned in the 10-K. The bottom line is that the RGEN CTLA4-Ig patent is a specific patent for use for rheumatoid arthritis which expires in 2021, while the BMY patent for the same drug is for use for "autoimmune diseases" which expires in 2016. She went on to acknowledge that rheumatoid arthritis is an example of an "autoimmune disease." RGEN's view is that its patent strengthens and supplements BMY's patent -- i.e., protection against generics for another 5 years, and specific mention of rheumatoid arthritis -- and that RGEN's patent has value, especially to BMY. I did not get any sense from her that an understanding is already in place, but then I did not expect to, even if one is. She also confirmed that the drug will be huge, if approved.
As a practical matter, there are not two versions of the drug. There is just one drug. To the extent I have inferred something different from what I have read, I was wrong.
We briefly discussed the R&R report and its reference to blocking BMY from developing and marketing the drug. She could tell me how and when such a challenge might be pursued, but could not really tell me why any court in a million years would enjoin BMY from proceeding to develop the drug. But then, maybe my questioning in this area had an edge to it.
I finished by telling her that I looked forward to the day when the Imclone litigation was over, the obsession with BMY patent rights had faded away, the company's other litigation had been resolved, and the significant $$ each year that I estimated these adventures were costing in legal talent went to profits instead. Not sure what she thought of that last rant.
This a profitable biotech trading for under $4. But I will be surprised if a deal with BMY is ever struck to learn that it is a big deal. On the other hand, if you are doing $10-$15 million in revenues per year, it doesn't take much in the way of license payments for a deal to be material.
FWIW, I am not selling here, and am not adding to what I have.
Steve
researcher59 re CHAR:
Thanks much. Ever since I started buying stocks recommended on this board, I have had a different kind of tough decision to make from time to time. Not complaining -- best kind of problems to have.
Steve
researcher59 re CHAR:
Is there a level where you would be a seller prior to the next earnings report, assuming no other news?
To the extent that I have investment regrets in recent times, it is for selling winners too soon; maybe the memories of those just stay with me longer. I have owned STV, ASPN, HOM, IPII, WEGI -- did great on each, but still sold way too soon. CHAR is the same story; would like to time my exit on this one better if I can.
Thanks.
Steve
OT re LA power:
It is back.
Steve
OT: Gold and commodities prices:
Article by Doug Casey on future prices of gold and other commodities:
http://www.kitcocasey.com/displayArticlePrint.php?id=276
Steve
c1001 re RGEN:
Last post for me on this one, pending some kind of news. If you had private mailbox, I would be happy to discuss at greater length.
To summarize my thoughts:
1. It would not surprise me to learn that there is an "understanding" in place between RGEN and BMY that involves royalty payments.
2. It would surprise me a lot to learn that right now, today, RGEN has a legally enforceable right to royalty payments. If it does, its latest 10-K and 10-Q are materially misleading, and RGEN should be informing the investment public about this legally enforceable right. If it exists, it is very, very valuable, and would influence investment decisions.
3. If RGEN has a legally enforceable right to royalty payments, I am real surprised that BMY has not disclosed it in its PRs on the subject. Even if one assumes that RGEN is "naive" about these things, BMY is not.
4. If RGEN has a legally enforceable right, then there is nothing to sue over -- when the royalties are due presumably they will be paid.
5. NONE of this explains what R&R means by a right to block BMY from bringing the drug to market. If such a right exists, I have to believe that both RGEN and BMY would be disclosing it.
My take, FWIW, is that a deal has not yet been officially struck, that the parties now have an "agreement in principle" or "agreement to agree," but that a deal is very likely once/if FDA approval is obtained. It will surprise (and, to a certain extent, disappoint) me if the company is really willing to tell me much about such a potential/likely deal prior to its disclosure to the investing public.
Steve
GMOS:
Another article on scooters:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/050826/b3949121mz070.html?.v=1
Steve
"U.S., Australia may allow new uranium mines":
Mineweb article reporting on comments made in uranium panel at Las Vegas Gold and Precious Metals Conference:
http://www.mineweb.net/sections/energy/483199.htm
Steve
c1001 re RGEN:
We've probably beaten this one to death.
I am not aware of any facts that would justify a new lawsuit by RGEN against BMY, and have no idea what the R&R analyst is talking about. As a general rule, companies that have $120 million market caps should avoid picking fights with companies that have $50 billion market caps. I haven't gone through the exercise, but I would bet that for a company doing $10-$15 million/per year in revenue, RGEN's attorneys fees and other litigation costs have been ridiculously high. On the surface, at least, the first round with BMY appears to have been a costly mistake. I like the look of this company a lot, but I'm not real interested in investing in litigation.
I have a call in to the company to see what I can find out about a possible license agreement with BMY. If I learn anything material, I will post about it. To be sure, the drug looks like a blockbuster, and if R&R is right, we should all be betting the ranch on this one.
Steve
c1001 re RGEN:
Thanks for the offer. I have Reuters report that has every conceivable number. I remain interested, however, in the concept for which no detail is supplied: that RGEN somehow has the leverage to block BMY. I tend to believe that the analyst has it wrong, but this "license agreement" is a bit mysterious. Frankly, my view may be skewed because I am so cynical about analysts anyway -- I'll spare you that rant.
Just some thoughts . . .
Steve
c1001 re RGEN:
What kind of lawsuit do you believe RGEN can file?
Thanks.
Steve
OT: c1001 re FDA:
I have always found all the general information I need at the FDA's own website.
Regarding RGEN, according to BMY press release the FDA has 90 days to review.
Steve
Argyll re WHAIE:
That depends on insurance too!
Good luck.
Steve
Argyll re WHAIE:
Had a chance this morning to take a quick look at the class action complaint filed by Schiffrin & Barroway:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com/case.cfm?id=6463461
Only a couple of things I would add to prior post:
1. In this complaint, at least, the class is defined as "all those who purchased the securities of World Health between June 26, 2003 and August 18, 2005." This definition -- which will vary from complaint to complaint -- must be just about everyone who ever owned the stock.
2. Although the PR on this class action does not mention it, outside auditor Daszkal Bolton is also named as a defendant. Depending on insurance, that firm may turn out to be the focus of the litigation. It appears to be a very small firm (per website), but it is conceivable that it bought a lot of insurance.
It is likely that the course of the litigation will be heavily influenced by insurance considerations. If WHAIE does not have insurance to provide a defense, I don't know how it can afford a defense along with all the other stresses that are undoubtedly in play at this time. If it has available insurance, but the limits are low, my guess is that the case(s) will settle early against those insured. If it has available insurance and the limits are high, my guess is the case(s) will go on for a while. My guess is that whatever insurance Daszkal has will be available. Again, if the limits are low, my guess is case will settle early against Daszkal; if limits are high, the opposite.
Hope this helps.
Steve
GIGM:
Earnings announced. Looks like $.02 for the quarter.
http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=PR&symbol=GIGM&storyID=143...
Steve
VPHM and general question:
Last after hours VPHM trade was $18.17 per NASDAQ website:
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?mode=frameset&kind=&timeframe=&intraday=&charttyp...
Looking at these trades, I note a trade for 89,300 shares at $16.80, almost $1 below the next lowest AH trade. I assume that this is some kind of pre-arranged sale. As a general question, using this as an example, what kind of transaction might this be? What is the explanation for a trade of this kind? And can it only be done after hours?
TIA.
Steve
Bobwins re VPHM:
Could be the IBD followers have finally arrived:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7077380&tid=vphm&sid=707...
Steve
c1001 re RGEN:
That is news to me, and very interesting indeed. I would love to know how they come to that conclusion, because if it is true, RGEN has significant leverage and may turn out to be a true partner with BMY in this drug. The drug itself is touted as having blockbuster potential.
There must be something to it. From the 10-K they seem pretty confident that they will be able to strike a deal with BMY.
Maybe I ought to buy some more . . .
Thanks.
Steve
c1001 re RGEN:
The litigation with BMY is over.
I don't know enough science to be of much more help. Specifically, I don't really know exactly what it means to have different versions of CTLA4-Ig, although it does not seem strange to me that there can be more than one variant. Also, I don't know enough patent law, especially where drugs are concerned, to really understand what the court fight was about. From the description of the litigation in the 10-Q, it is clear that the litigation was over "inventorship" of the variant to which BMY has patents, with RGEN and the University of Michigan claiming they should have the patent rights because a Michigan professor "really" invented the variant. The court rejected this idea: "The District Court found that Repligen and Michigan had not proven by clear, convincing, and corroborative evidence that Dr. Thompson is a sole or joint inventor of any of the patents in suit."
I imagine that the variant of CTLA4-Ig to which RGEN has patents is a potential competitor to BMY's variant, and that this is the motivation for the two companies to enter into a license agreement relating to RGEN's variant. I assume that some agreement has been or will be reached, but have no idea how to quantify the value of the deal to RGEN without more information. My assumption is that the market has already priced in FDA approval of BMY's application, seeing it as a foregone conclusion. But as FDA approval approaches, the potential license agreement also approaches, and I speculate that the price of RGEN may get bid up in anticipation that the license agreement will be a lucrative one.
Steve
c1001 re RGEN:
While this is certainly good news, I do not believe it is accurate to state that RGEN has the patent on BMY's Orencia.
As I understand it, BMY owns the rights to a version of CTLA4-Ig (i.e., Orencia/Abatacept), and RGEN owns the rights to a different version of CTLA4-Ig.
From an RGEN 10-Q filed August 9, 2004, for the quarter ending June 30, 2004:
"Repligen is the exclusive licensee of all CTLA4-Ig patent rights owned by the University of Michigan ('Michigan'). Repligen and Michigan filed a complaint against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ('Bristol') in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the 'District Court') in August 2002 seeking correction of inventorship of certain patents which relate to compositions and uses of CTLA4 assigned to Bristol. The suit asserted that Michigan has a rightful claim to ownership of these patents based on the inventive contributions that Dr. Craig Thompson, a scientist from Michigan, made as part of a collaboration with Bristol scientists and is therefore a rightful inventor on the patents issued to Bristol. The District Court found that Repligen and Michigan had not proven by clear, convincing, and corroborative evidence that Dr. Thompson is a sole or joint inventor of any of the patents in suit. In October 2003, we filed an appeal to the ruling of the District Court with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments were heard at the Federal Circuit on July 9, 2004. On July 12, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a decision in favor of Bristol by affirming the ruling of the District Court. The ruling of the Federal Circuit is final. Our failure to obtain ownership rights to these Bristol patents may restrict our ability to commercialize CTLA4-Ig.
"Repligen owns the exclusive rights to an issued U.S. patent that covers a method of treating rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosis and scleroderma with CTLA4-Ig and the use of CTLA4-Ig in combination with other immunosuppressants, through license agreements with Michigan and the United States Navy. This patent, which will remain in force until 2021, is independent from the CTLA4-Ig patents that were the subject of the lawsuit."
On its website the company says the following:
"Repligen owns the exclusive rights to an issued U.S. patent that covers the use of CTLA4-Ig for the treatment of various autoimmune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. This patent will remain in force until 2021 and also covers a method of treating rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus and scleroderma with CTLA4-Ig alone and in combination with other immunosuppressant drugs. Additionally, we own the exclusive rights to a European patent with substantially similar claims that will remain in force until 2013. Repligen owns the exclusive rights to these patents through a license agreement with the University of Michigan and through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the United States Navy. These patents are independent of the patents on CTLA4-Ig that were the subject of a lawsuit that Repligen and the University previously prosecuted against Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporation.
"Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporation presented positive results from two Phase 3 clinical trials of their form of CTLA4-Ig at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology in October 2004. Bristol has disclosed that they completed filing a New Drug Application for CTLA4-Ig in rheumatoid arthritis in March 2005. The FDA has granted CTLA4-Ig (AbataceptTM) Fast Track Designation. Bristol anticipates launching AbataceptTM by the end of 2005."
And in the company's 10-K dated June 14, 2005:
"In April 2005 Bristol-Myers Squibb ('Bristol') announced that they had completed the filing of a Biological License Application with the FDA in March 2005 for the use of CTLA4-Ig for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and had previously stated that this application has been given 'Fast Track' designation by the FDA. If the FDA approves Bristol’s CTLA4-Ig we will seek to license our patent to them."
I speculated in a previous post that the two companies may already have reached an understanding regarding RGEN's patent rights in the event of FDA approval. It seems unusual to me for a company to say in a 10-K that it "will seek to license" something, unless the company has good reason to believe that a license agreement can be successfully negotiated.
Adding all this together, my sense is that BMY is more likely to want to license RGEN's patent rights, now that it has FDA approval of its version of CTLA4-Ig.
Steve
Argyll re WHAIE:
Not to be cute, but in a very real sense anyone who owns the stock, or has owned the stock in the relevant past, is participating already as a member of a putative class yet to be certified.
While I have not seen the actual complaints, it is very likely that all class actions have been filed (or will be filed -- there are probably a few more to come) in federal court. It is also very likely that they will all be consolidated into one class action, with venue in the Western District of Pennsylvania. It is likely that individual federal cases -- as distinct from class actions -- will ultimately be coordinated for discovery and pretrial purposes with this consolidated class action case. Any state court case will probably proceed on its own.
There are multiple cases because there are multiple plaintiffs class action law firms vying for control of the litigation. During the next six months to a year, this is one of the primary things that must get resolved. I don't know the extent of institutional ownership of the stock, and, if there is significant institutional ownership, whether that institutional ownership would be willing to represent the class. Usually institutional ownership does not want to get involved. Ultimately, it is likely that control of the litigation will go to the plaintiff firm that has recruited -- excuse me, "represents" -- the largest shareholders. Other factors: who was first to file? who has been pursuing the interests of the class most vigorously? Hence, a race to the courthouse and a flurry of early activity.
IMHO the ability of WHAIE to survive at this point depends entirely on insurance -- i.e., how much is there, and what does it cover? If insurance is not available, or, if available, insubstantial, the company would probably be well advised to file for bankruptcy now. I don't know any facts, except that the stock has tanked, and that there have been "accounting irregularities." However, if the conduct is "criminal enough," the first fight on the defense side -- albeit behind the scenes -- is likely to be about insurance coverage and whether insurers will provide a defense.
If I get time this weekend, I will take a look at the latest complaint. It is likely to be the most highly evolved, and to give the best idea of what the company is alleged to have done.
Hope this is responsive.
Steve
oasdihf:
Thanks for the post, including the link.
At page 10 of this Roadshow Presentation, there is a graph showing the historical price expressed in 2004 dollars:
http://www.uraniumparticipation.com/content/presentations/investorpresentations.cfm?catid=442
Seems to me that Dines may not be far off.
Thanks again.
Steve
URNZ.ob
Those interested in getting in at the ground floor of what could be a very promising uranium exploration company might want to look into URNZ.ob
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21663195
Steve
OT: c1001 re settled funds:
If you buy a stock without sufficient settled funds, you need to hold that stock until you have settled funds to cover the trade. If you sell too soon, you are in violation of an SEC rule.
At Schwab you get a warning or two that you have violated the SEC rule. If you violate it again anyway, then for the next 90 days Schwab will prevent you from buying anything without sufficient settled funds to make the buy. But they do not suspend activity altogether.
Steve
RCR report:
Have been following the posts on this board for about 3 months, trying to learn about investment possibilities in uranium. So far the only thing I've bought is a modest number of the Uranium Participation Corporation 2007 warrants. My timing has been far from perfect, but they have done well in the past couple of weeks, and it has turned out to be a good investment so far.
The link to the RCR Report is much appreciated. I have scanned it and will be reading it more thoroughly over the weekend; however, I note the following statement under "Price Outlook" (p.28): "Market fundamentals are stronger than initially predicted by iNi . . . and subsequently the price of U3O8 could be maintained at around current levels of US$30 per pound or increase in 2006. The price of U3O8 is expected to settle in the mid US$20's per pound range till 2018 when it is forecast to increase to around US$26-28 per pound."
Needless to say, this is not what I have assumed about the future price, and when you look at historical (i.e., 50 year history) prices in 2005 dollars this does not make a lot of sense to me if the supply/demand fundamentals are as they are widely reported.
I would welcome any thoughts those posting here may have.
Thanks.
Steve