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.
Done before approval? Correct, however this was done years before even PIII trial results, which have yet to be announced.
A BP brings a one-time big checkbook? Yes, usually that, plus royalties plus milestone payments on agreed peak level sales, plus in most cases other checkbooks and royalties for other indications, if the drug proves to be effective.
I don't know what you mean by saying "keep control of the company in the hands of the company". The company belongs to shareholders, and anytime there's dilution and a shareholder can't keep up with that, by buying additional shares, it loses a % of control of the company.
I tend to agree with you.
3.0M for 20,628,571 shares of common stock is 0.145 for each share (without taking into account warrants, prepaid or not).
Actually I didn't even talk about immediate cash requirements. Moreover I already pointed out that regarding those legal fees, we don't know if those will be recurrent or not. Finally, if you at this point want to know my opinion on the matter, I believe that legal fees will most likely point lower and lower in current and next quarter for obvious reasons.
In the recent 10Q net loss was 12.6M and cash used was 12.3.
For the General and Aministrative expensed of 6.9M they specify that the number refers to cash and non-cash expenses combined, while other costs don't have such a reference, thus I suspect that the difference lays in that subgroup, and not in legal fees, which by definition is not a non-cash expense.
No worries. Only Canada has price restrictions as you can't sell lower than current price (in order to avoid unnecessary and artificial downward pressure). Other countries (as it happens for instance in Europe) can however sometimes lift a short selling temporary ban on single sectors or single listed company, but the real effects are often mild.
Truth is noone knows and estimates are not that easy at this point. They surely can't burn what they don't have, so it might be better to make estimates of cash on hand on March the 31st and then move from there with estimates.
If memory serves me right, last quarter had 3.9M in legal fees, so just for legal fees (which noone knows if they will be recurrent or not in current quarter), they used 1.3M/month of cash (though they have insurance for that so much should be recouped).
Short selling is not banned neither in Europe, nor in Australia:
http://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/markets/short-selling/short-selling-reporting-short-position-reporting/
https://www.esma.europa.eu/regulation/trading/short-selling
Only in Canada, though short selling itself is not banned, it has some restrictions as for short sales price.
But congrats on the post anyway.
It's pretty boring to hear the same old story again and again. Attacks? wolfpack? shorts? really really boring. Reasonable terms? Would you mind to list the millions of shares sold from December till today? CPXX? One example in hundreds that went the opposite way. Oh right, I forgot it's plenty of statisticians in here.
But othernot the theory is great, congrats! Lol.
5M debt taken care of.
And why do you think it didn't start yet?
Posting news, uh? Maybe he was referring to L, don't you think? lol.
Yes ok, but when? In 2019?
Instant boom you mean in 2019?
You might want to re-read the 8k once again...
Very short. Please note that you write:
"What I'm thinking is that these WhiteBox Convertible Senior Note holders could have exchanged their notes with the company for shares and warrants, then the company will re-exchange those same notes with the institutional investors that seem to want to purchase them."
From the recent 8K:
"The institutional investors desire to purchase the Notes directly from the Holders."
Your assumption is therefore wrong. Cheers.
But sometimes statistics helps.
That's exactly what he said.
I wonder what's so unclear about the 8K. Negotiations, forbearance agreement, unregistered sales of equity, it's all written down.
It depends on what price you settle the debt for equity swap.
11+ million shares at 0.18 not bad at all? Lol.
Bio, I understand you don't have a finance background, but I believe you are making much confusion about regulatory requirements and a fund's choice to report its NAV on a shorter timeframe, but that is getting a bit OT.
They ain't working at all, shorts IMO left this stock long ago, this thing that if a stock declines it's because of shorts is the same old story people keep on saying.
?!? Listed funds are used to provide NAV updates DAILY!
You call 17.500$ confidence?
Portfolio content is updated every single month. You can check by yourself (as I did) that the co. is still listed in two different funds as of end of last month.
You missed it
I find it very odd to hint conclusions of this type, by trying to put together info that by itself says nothing at all about the matter. Same thing happened when the 2017 due notes were to be paid in instalments (where many people speculated about instalments due after conferences), for 1$ warrants, and many many other info. So far any hint of this type seem to have turned up wrong, so why keeping it up? When the co. will PR something, then that's it, othernot all of this is pure (and so far way wrong) speculation.
Chances that they would present it at ASCO?
This post reminds me of your predictions since 2014, lol...
Last time I heard of unknown forces I think it was in Star Wars.
But if you believe there are big pharmas involved, wouldn't you mind to give some examples?
I thank you, I am very comfortable with balanced views (very few in this MB). GLTY.
Sources?
We are mixing arguments.
Again, I am not discussing either the co. being bought out.
Talking only about the financial possibility of the co. buying in the past Cognate.
I made the example of CLBS (ex NBS) and PCT (which was at that time a privately held company). The deal at that time was valued around 20M.
I am not discussing the financial relationships between the two companies, but only the fact that IMO, Cognate could have been bought out. If you are familiar with other similar companies (I brought an example with CLBS and PCT) you would have an idea of the numbers.
Considering how much the co. paid Cognate so far for its services the co. IMO could have in the past easily bought out Cognate and have in house vaccine production.
CLBS (ex NBS) used to have in house manufacturing through PCT, which did itself have lots of customers and generated interesting revenutes. CLBS obviously ran its trials using PCT's services.
Recently PCT has been sold to Hitachi for 100M in 2 different transactions.
That PFS is primary endpoint and OS is secondary endpoint is a given.
That you still confound a primary endpoint with a surrogate endpoint is IMO very odd, given that primary and secondary endpoints are still blinded while a surrogate endpoint could simply be found in the meanwhile outside primary and/or secondary endpoints, which would validate the hypothetical prediction of a clinical benefit.
Once again, this is the definition of surrogate endpoint: "A surrogate endpoint used for accelerated approval is a marker - a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit".
But since IMO you have been so right so far about your predictions, I can live with the idea that IMO you are wrong, again.
Argument closed for me. Cheers.
I was not referring to you Flipper.
I know, it seems that the control arm there significantly overperformed. The statistics of this PIII will IMO be particularly challenging, as for the trial design itself. So IMO either the mOS comes up really strong, or I see some real challenges in comparing the two arms, given the crossover.