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.
Gale NOT as potent as this cancer immunotherapy:
http://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2014/11/03/the-most-undervalued-yet-comprehensive-cancer-immunotherapy-in-development
This is a very informative video on the latest developments
We need to spread the word about this puppy and YES get off the OTC market. Nasdaq here we come!!!
Ironridge = Toxic Financing for PSID
http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Toxic-Financings-A-Case-Study-For-Small-Cap-Retail-Investors/s/via/21121/article/view/p/mid/1/id/8/
Public company financings, when done well, are supposed to make a company healthy and thrive. The allows companies to grow by letting them compete in new markets and create new products.
These days it seems an increasing number of small cap companies are being cornered into signing toxic financing agreements. Gcan turn the boon of extra capital into a cancer that can cripple or kill public companies and their inexperienced investors with them.
To understand how toxic financing works and how devastating it can be, consider the highly volitile, high profile lawsuit case involving financeer/investment firm Ironridge Global and NewLead Holdings, (OTCMKTS:NEWL) an international shipping company that owns a fleet of dry bulk carriers and double-hull product tankers.
Toxic financing is not just a colorful phrase to describe a bad situation; it describes a specific financial scenario. These financing deals are usually restricted to companies that are fiscally weak. An investor purchases convertible equities or debt that allows the investor to exchange those instruments for common stock in a weak company. In most scenarios, the instrument converts to a fixed number of shares. In the toxic financing scenario, the weak business is so desperate for capital it allows the investor to convert the instrument for a number of shares based on a specific dollar value allows the investor to put the company in a death spiral.
The "investor" converts some of its equities for common stock and sells it. This causes the market value of the shares to go down, which allows the investor to receive more shares as it converts additional equities. Eventually, the share price plummets, and all the original investors bear the expense. The perceived “malicious investor” gets all the profits.
In the NewLead case, one look at the firm’s historic stock chart tells the devastating story. More recently, the firm decided to "voluntariy" exit the Nasdaq Stock Exchange after numerous efforts to retain its public status ultimately failed. A dispute with Ironridge Global has been perceived by many as the main reason for its horrific share price drop, but a June court ruling said Ironridge had nothing to do with share declines.
Ironridge Global describes itself as an “equity investor in micro-cap public companies.” That means it invests in companies that are traded on a public exchange or over the counter and whose stock is valued between $50 and $300 million. Generally, companies with a smaller capitalization are considered riskier than large cap companies, such as Coca-Cola or Walgreens. However, since the risk is higher, so is the potential return.
To say there is growing hostility against these “toxic” investment firms is an understatement. One message board on the popular investment site InvestorsHub, spews contempt through its use of dry humor, features links to the firm’s growing number of lawsuits, an SEC subpoena and even points to the extravagant wedding of one of the firm’s principals, John Kirkland.
NewLead Holdings, like so many other public firms, needed financing to help support its operations and was publicly traded on the NASDAQ. Apparently. thats where Ironridge came in. In exchange for $2.5 million in cash, Ironridge received 500 preference shares in NewLead. In addition, Ironridge paid another $22.5 million in promissory notes in exchange for another 2,250 preference shares.
Things got interesting for Ironridge and disastrous for NewLead. When Ironridge chose to convert its preferred shares into common stock, it also got dividends. These dividends were to be paid in either cash or in more of NewLead stock.
How much NewLead stock Ironridge got was defined by contract, but the dividend stock was always valued below the current market value of the NewLead shares. If the value of the common stock dropped, Ironridge got more NewLead shares with every dividend payment.
Once the agreement was set, every week for a month, Ironridge converted its preferred stock and received stock dividends. The common shares were promptly sold, causing the stock value to drop. Every week, Ironridge got more shares to sell. The result was a drop in NewLead share value from $17 to 29 cents. NewLead refused to convert any more shares, claiming that Ironridge fraudulently entered into the contract and maliciously destroyed the stock’s value.
NewLead’s filed civil claims against Ironridge for damages exceeding $125 million are getting more and more attention. NewLead contends that Ironridge breached its contract with NewLead, participated in several acts of fraud, and manipulated the securities market. However, it may be too little, too late. As stated earlier, NewLead was basically delisted from the NASDAQ earlier this month.
Delistings are nothing new here. PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID) ended up being delisted from the Nasdaq shortly after announcing a deal, initially reported to worth up to $13.8million, with Ironridge. The firm would later acknowledge that it never received the anticipated funds. In fact, it claimed that the deal was to be revised to involve lower funding and months later said that there was no funding. Inevitably, the firm nosedived and its position in the market plummeted.
Another lawsuit against Ironridge involves High Plains Gas (OTCMKTS:HPGS). High Plains entered into a deal with Ironridge and received approximately $1.12 million funding. However, less than a month into the deal the CEO resigned due to massive stock disintegration. It was noted that High Plains and its creditors had not received funding almost one month since the deal was completed. Some regulators and politicians are starting to wonder if entering into a deal with certain financial companies based on promises about funding or long-term investment may not be what they appear to be. Indeed, many firms of these firms saw their stocks lose value significantly within one month of entering a deal with firms like Ironridge.
The lesson for small cap investors is to learn to read the terms of the financings your companies agree to. “There are two dance partners in every transaction,” writes one Seeking Alpha contributor who has been following the story. “The lender and the management team which agreed to do the deal. Hold each one accountable.
These days most retail investors fall for news releases that proudly announce many of these financings as positive developments which provide much needed capital and help push products and projects forward, but most don't have the qualifications or knowledge to understand that the companies they invest in are, in more and more cases, being sent into "death spirals."
Altogether, toxic financing companies appear to worsen small investors’ already risky situation. Promised about long-term investment must be carefully studied and considered.
Regulators and politicians are often called upon to do a better job of protecting the public from some of these otherwise legal schemes, but until they step in and realize the damage these types of financings are causing the markets, retail investors, small cap company management teams and others who get snared into these situations have to take responsibility for their actions.
Ironridge = Toxic Financing for HPGS
http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Toxic-Financings-A-Case-Study-For-Small-Cap-Retail-Investors/s/via/21121/article/view/p/mid/1/id/8/
Public company financings, when done well, are supposed to make a company healthy and thrive. The allows companies to grow by letting them compete in new markets and create new products.
These days it seems an increasing number of small cap companies are being cornered into signing toxic financing agreements. Gcan turn the boon of extra capital into a cancer that can cripple or kill public companies and their inexperienced investors with them.
To understand how toxic financing works and how devastating it can be, consider the highly volitile, high profile lawsuit case involving financeer/investment firm Ironridge Global and NewLead Holdings, (OTCMKTS:NEWL) an international shipping company that owns a fleet of dry bulk carriers and double-hull product tankers.
Toxic financing is not just a colorful phrase to describe a bad situation; it describes a specific financial scenario. These financing deals are usually restricted to companies that are fiscally weak. An investor purchases convertible equities or debt that allows the investor to exchange those instruments for common stock in a weak company. In most scenarios, the instrument converts to a fixed number of shares. In the toxic financing scenario, the weak business is so desperate for capital it allows the investor to convert the instrument for a number of shares based on a specific dollar value allows the investor to put the company in a death spiral.
The "investor" converts some of its equities for common stock and sells it. This causes the market value of the shares to go down, which allows the investor to receive more shares as it converts additional equities. Eventually, the share price plummets, and all the original investors bear the expense. The perceived “malicious investor” gets all the profits.
In the NewLead case, one look at the firm’s historic stock chart tells the devastating story. More recently, the firm decided to "voluntariy" exit the Nasdaq Stock Exchange after numerous efforts to retain its public status ultimately failed. A dispute with Ironridge Global has been perceived by many as the main reason for its horrific share price drop, but a June court ruling said Ironridge had nothing to do with share declines.
Ironridge Global describes itself as an “equity investor in micro-cap public companies.” That means it invests in companies that are traded on a public exchange or over the counter and whose stock is valued between $50 and $300 million. Generally, companies with a smaller capitalization are considered riskier than large cap companies, such as Coca-Cola or Walgreens. However, since the risk is higher, so is the potential return.
To say there is growing hostility against these “toxic” investment firms is an understatement. One message board on the popular investment site InvestorsHub, spews contempt through its use of dry humor, features links to the firm’s growing number of lawsuits, an SEC subpoena and even points to the extravagant wedding of one of the firm’s principals, John Kirkland.
NewLead Holdings, like so many other public firms, needed financing to help support its operations and was publicly traded on the NASDAQ. Apparently. thats where Ironridge came in. In exchange for $2.5 million in cash, Ironridge received 500 preference shares in NewLead. In addition, Ironridge paid another $22.5 million in promissory notes in exchange for another 2,250 preference shares.
Things got interesting for Ironridge and disastrous for NewLead. When Ironridge chose to convert its preferred shares into common stock, it also got dividends. These dividends were to be paid in either cash or in more of NewLead stock.
How much NewLead stock Ironridge got was defined by contract, but the dividend stock was always valued below the current market value of the NewLead shares. If the value of the common stock dropped, Ironridge got more NewLead shares with every dividend payment.
Once the agreement was set, every week for a month, Ironridge converted its preferred stock and received stock dividends. The common shares were promptly sold, causing the stock value to drop. Every week, Ironridge got more shares to sell. The result was a drop in NewLead share value from $17 to 29 cents. NewLead refused to convert any more shares, claiming that Ironridge fraudulently entered into the contract and maliciously destroyed the stock’s value.
NewLead’s filed civil claims against Ironridge for damages exceeding $125 million are getting more and more attention. NewLead contends that Ironridge breached its contract with NewLead, participated in several acts of fraud, and manipulated the securities market. However, it may be too little, too late. As stated earlier, NewLead was basically delisted from the NASDAQ earlier this month.
Delistings are nothing new here. PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID) ended up being delisted from the Nasdaq shortly after announcing a deal, initially reported to worth up to $13.8million, with Ironridge. The firm would later acknowledge that it never received the anticipated funds. In fact, it claimed that the deal was to be revised to involve lower funding and months later said that there was no funding. Inevitably, the firm nosedived and its position in the market plummeted.
Another lawsuit against Ironridge involves High Plains Gas (OTCMKTS:HPGS). High Plains entered into a deal with Ironridge and received approximately $1.12 million funding. However, less than a month into the deal the CEO resigned due to massive stock disintegration. It was noted that High Plains and its creditors had not received funding almost one month since the deal was completed. Some regulators and politicians are starting to wonder if entering into a deal with certain financial companies based on promises about funding or long-term investment may not be what they appear to be. Indeed, many firms of these firms saw their stocks lose value significantly within one month of entering a deal with firms like Ironridge.
The lesson for small cap investors is to learn to read the terms of the financings your companies agree to. “There are two dance partners in every transaction,” writes one Seeking Alpha contributor who has been following the story. “The lender and the management team which agreed to do the deal. Hold each one accountable.
These days most retail investors fall for news releases that proudly announce many of these financings as positive developments which provide much needed capital and help push products and projects forward, but most don't have the qualifications or knowledge to understand that the companies they invest in are, in more and more cases, being sent into "death spirals."
Altogether, toxic financing companies appear to worsen small investors’ already risky situation. Promised about long-term investment must be carefully studied and considered.
Regulators and politicians are often called upon to do a better job of protecting the public from some of these otherwise legal schemes, but until they step in and realize the damage these types of financings are causing the markets, retail investors, small cap company management teams and others who get snared into these situations have to take responsibility for their actions.
Has rthe fat lady sung here already? I man the stock price seems to be stablilizing- finally- at these levels. Is there more death spiral stuff going on since the lawsuit? I thought we'd be a sub-penny if so.
Also.. Do you guys know how much shares were trading at when this toxic finance mess started?
Article about Ironridge and NEWL
http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Toxic-Financings-A-Case-Study-For-Small-Cap-Retail-Investors/s/via/21121/article/view/p/mid/1/id/8/
Public company financings, when done well, are supposed to make a company healthy and thrive. The allows companies to grow by letting them compete in new markets and create new products.
These days it seems an increasing number of small cap companies are being cornered into signing toxic financing agreements. Gcan turn the boon of extra capital into a cancer that can cripple or kill public companies and their inexperienced investors with them.
To understand how toxic financing works and how devastating it can be, consider the highly volitile, high profile lawsuit case involving financeer/investment firm Ironridge Global and NewLead Holdings, (OTCMKTS:NEWL) an international shipping company that owns a fleet of dry bulk carriers and double-hull product tankers.
Toxic financing is not just a colorful phrase to describe a bad situation; it describes a specific financial scenario. These financing deals are usually restricted to companies that are fiscally weak. An investor purchases convertible equities or debt that allows the investor to exchange those instruments for common stock in a weak company. In most scenarios, the instrument converts to a fixed number of shares. In the toxic financing scenario, the weak business is so desperate for capital it allows the investor to convert the instrument for a number of shares based on a specific dollar value allows the investor to put the company in a death spiral.
The "investor" converts some of its equities for common stock and sells it. This causes the market value of the shares to go down, which allows the investor to receive more shares as it converts additional equities. Eventually, the share price plummets, and all the original investors bear the expense. The perceived “malicious investor” gets all the profits.
In the NewLead case, one look at the firm’s historic stock chart tells the devastating story. More recently, the firm decided to "voluntariy" exit the Nasdaq Stock Exchange after numerous efforts to retain its public status ultimately failed. A dispute with Ironridge Global has been perceived by many as the main reason for its horrific share price drop, but a June court ruling said Ironridge had nothing to do with share declines.
Ironridge Global describes itself as an “equity investor in micro-cap public companies.” That means it invests in companies that are traded on a public exchange or over the counter and whose stock is valued between $50 and $300 million. Generally, companies with a smaller capitalization are considered riskier than large cap companies, such as Coca-Cola or Walgreens. However, since the risk is higher, so is the potential return.
To say there is growing hostility against these “toxic” investment firms is an understatement. One message board on the popular investment site InvestorsHub, spews contempt through its use of dry humor, features links to the firm’s growing number of lawsuits, an SEC subpoena and even points to the extravagant wedding of one of the firm’s principals, John Kirkland.
NewLead Holdings, like so many other public firms, needed financing to help support its operations and was publicly traded on the NASDAQ. Apparently. thats where Ironridge came in. In exchange for $2.5 million in cash, Ironridge received 500 preference shares in NewLead. In addition, Ironridge paid another $22.5 million in promissory notes in exchange for another 2,250 preference shares.
Things got interesting for Ironridge and disastrous for NewLead. When Ironridge chose to convert its preferred shares into common stock, it also got dividends. These dividends were to be paid in either cash or in more of NewLead stock.
How much NewLead stock Ironridge got was defined by contract, but the dividend stock was always valued below the current market value of the NewLead shares. If the value of the common stock dropped, Ironridge got more NewLead shares with every dividend payment.
Once the agreement was set, every week for a month, Ironridge converted its preferred stock and received stock dividends. The common shares were promptly sold, causing the stock value to drop. Every week, Ironridge got more shares to sell. The result was a drop in NewLead share value from $17 to 29 cents. NewLead refused to convert any more shares, claiming that Ironridge fraudulently entered into the contract and maliciously destroyed the stock’s value.
NewLead’s filed civil claims against Ironridge for damages exceeding $125 million are getting more and more attention. NewLead contends that Ironridge breached its contract with NewLead, participated in several acts of fraud, and manipulated the securities market. However, it may be too little, too late. As stated earlier, NewLead was basically delisted from the NASDAQ earlier this month.
Delistings are nothing new here. PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID) ended up being delisted from the Nasdaq shortly after announcing a deal, initially reported to worth up to $13.8million, with Ironridge. The firm would later acknowledge that it never received the anticipated funds. In fact, it claimed that the deal was to be revised to involve lower funding and months later said that there was no funding. Inevitably, the firm nosedived and its position in the market plummeted.
Another lawsuit against Ironridge involves High Plains Gas (OTCMKTS:HPGS). High Plains entered into a deal with Ironridge and received approximately $1.12 million funding. However, less than a month into the deal the CEO resigned due to massive stock disintegration. It was noted that High Plains and its creditors had not received funding almost one month since the deal was completed. Some regulators and politicians are starting to wonder if entering into a deal with certain financial companies based on promises about funding or long-term investment may not be what they appear to be. Indeed, many firms of these firms saw their stocks lose value significantly within one month of entering a deal with firms like Ironridge.
The lesson for small cap investors is to learn to read the terms of the financings your companies agree to. “There are two dance partners in every transaction,” writes one Seeking Alpha contributor who has been following the story. “The lender and the management team which agreed to do the deal. Hold each one accountable.
These days most retail investors fall for news releases that proudly announce many of these financings as positive developments which provide much needed capital and help push products and projects forward, but most don't have the qualifications or knowledge to understand that the companies they invest in are, in more and more cases, being sent into "death spirals."
Altogether, toxic financing companies appear to worsen small investors’ already risky situation. Promised about long-term investment must be carefully studied and considered.
Regulators and politicians are often called upon to do a better job of protecting the public from some of these otherwise legal schemes, but until they step in and realize the damage these types of financings are causing the markets, retail investors, small cap company management teams and others who get snared into these situations have to take responsibility for their actions.
New Article-- Ironridge = Toxic Financings
http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Toxic-Financings-A-Case-Study-For-Small-Cap-Retail-Investors/s/via/21121/article/view/p/mid/1/id/8/
Public company financings, when done well, are supposed to make a company healthy and thrive. The allows companies to grow by letting them compete in new markets and create new products.
These days it seems an increasing number of small cap companies are being cornered into signing toxic financing agreements. Gcan turn the boon of extra capital into a cancer that can cripple or kill public companies and their inexperienced investors with them.
To understand how toxic financing works and how devastating it can be, consider the highly volitile, high profile lawsuit case involving financeer/investment firm Ironridge Global and NewLead Holdings, (OTCMKTS:NEWL) an international shipping company that owns a fleet of dry bulk carriers and double-hull product tankers.
Toxic financing is not just a colorful phrase to describe a bad situation; it describes a specific financial scenario. These financing deals are usually restricted to companies that are fiscally weak. An investor purchases convertible equities or debt that allows the investor to exchange those instruments for common stock in a weak company. In most scenarios, the instrument converts to a fixed number of shares. In the toxic financing scenario, the weak business is so desperate for capital it allows the investor to convert the instrument for a number of shares based on a specific dollar value allows the investor to put the company in a death spiral.
The "investor" converts some of its equities for common stock and sells it. This causes the market value of the shares to go down, which allows the investor to receive more shares as it converts additional equities. Eventually, the share price plummets, and all the original investors bear the expense. The perceived “malicious investor” gets all the profits.
In the NewLead case, one look at the firm’s historic stock chart tells the devastating story. More recently, the firm decided to "voluntariy" exit the Nasdaq Stock Exchange after numerous efforts to retain its public status ultimately failed. A dispute with Ironridge Global has been perceived by many as the main reason for its horrific share price drop, but a June court ruling said Ironridge had nothing to do with share declines.
Ironridge Global describes itself as an “equity investor in micro-cap public companies.” That means it invests in companies that are traded on a public exchange or over the counter and whose stock is valued between $50 and $300 million. Generally, companies with a smaller capitalization are considered riskier than large cap companies, such as Coca-Cola or Walgreens. However, since the risk is higher, so is the potential return.
To say there is growing hostility against these “toxic” investment firms is an understatement. One message board on the popular investment site InvestorsHub, spews contempt through its use of dry humor, features links to the firm’s growing number of lawsuits, an SEC subpoena and even points to the extravagant wedding of one of the firm’s principals, John Kirkland.
NewLead Holdings, like so many other public firms, needed financing to help support its operations and was publicly traded on the NASDAQ. Apparently. thats where Ironridge came in. In exchange for $2.5 million in cash, Ironridge received 500 preference shares in NewLead. In addition, Ironridge paid another $22.5 million in promissory notes in exchange for another 2,250 preference shares.
Things got interesting for Ironridge and disastrous for NewLead. When Ironridge chose to convert its preferred shares into common stock, it also got dividends. These dividends were to be paid in either cash or in more of NewLead stock.
How much NewLead stock Ironridge got was defined by contract, but the dividend stock was always valued below the current market value of the NewLead shares. If the value of the common stock dropped, Ironridge got more NewLead shares with every dividend payment.
Once the agreement was set, every week for a month, Ironridge converted its preferred stock and received stock dividends. The common shares were promptly sold, causing the stock value to drop. Every week, Ironridge got more shares to sell. The result was a drop in NewLead share value from $17 to 29 cents. NewLead refused to convert any more shares, claiming that Ironridge fraudulently entered into the contract and maliciously destroyed the stock’s value.
NewLead’s filed civil claims against Ironridge for damages exceeding $125 million are getting more and more attention. NewLead contends that Ironridge breached its contract with NewLead, participated in several acts of fraud, and manipulated the securities market. However, it may be too little, too late. As stated earlier, NewLead was basically delisted from the NASDAQ earlier this month.
Delistings are nothing new here. PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID) ended up being delisted from the Nasdaq shortly after announcing a deal, initially reported to worth up to $13.8million, with Ironridge. The firm would later acknowledge that it never received the anticipated funds. In fact, it claimed that the deal was to be revised to involve lower funding and months later said that there was no funding. Inevitably, the firm nosedived and its position in the market plummeted.
Another lawsuit against Ironridge involves High Plains Gas (OTCMKTS:HPGS). High Plains entered into a deal with Ironridge and received approximately $1.12 million funding. However, less than a month into the deal the CEO resigned due to massive stock disintegration. It was noted that High Plains and its creditors had not received funding almost one month since the deal was completed. Some regulators and politicians are starting to wonder if entering into a deal with certain financial companies based on promises about funding or long-term investment may not be what they appear to be. Indeed, many firms of these firms saw their stocks lose value significantly within one month of entering a deal with firms like Ironridge.
The lesson for small cap investors is to learn to read the terms of the financings your companies agree to. “There are two dance partners in every transaction,” writes one Seeking Alpha contributor who has been following the story. “The lender and the management team which agreed to do the deal. Hold each one accountable.
These days most retail investors fall for news releases that proudly announce many of these financings as positive developments which provide much needed capital and help push products and projects forward, but most don't have the qualifications or knowledge to understand that the companies they invest in are, in more and more cases, being sent into "death spirals."
Altogether, toxic financing companies appear to worsen small investors’ already risky situation. Promised about long-term investment must be carefully studied and considered.
Regulators and politicians are often called upon to do a better job of protecting the public from some of these otherwise legal schemes, but until they step in and realize the damage these types of financings are causing the markets, retail investors, small cap company management teams and others who get snared into these situations have to take responsibility for their actions.
This guy was also looking to get hold of someone from IronRidge for this article but was unable to, apparently:
The Small Retail Biotech Investor Usually Suffers Most In Toxic Financings
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/861697-michael-morhamus/3165155-the-small-retail-biotech-investor-usually-suffers-most-in-toxic-financings
Are Toxic Financings from Ironridge Slaying Small Retail Investors?
Apparently not all the news on Kirkland is good.
http://www.biomedreports.com/20140819191932/are-qtoxic-financingsq-slaying-small-retail-investors.html
Is Exact Sciences Still A Buy At These Prices?
(they put this article out to premium subscribers first a couple of days go and I was able to jump on for the ride all the way up today. Cha Ching)
http://www.biomedreports.com/20140820192142/exact-sciences-still-a-buy-at-these-prices.html
Are Ironridge's "Toxic Financings" Slaying Small Retail Investors?
What do publicly traded biotech companies like Genetic Technologies (NASDAQ::GENE), Rosetta Genomics (NASDAQ::ROSG), MEI Pharma Inc(NASDAQ::MEIP), Advaxis, Inc.(NASDAQ::ADXS), Amarantus Bioscience (OTCMKTS:AMBS), Pressure Biosciences (OTCMKTS:PBIO), Uluru Inc. (OTCMKTS:ULUR), PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID), Cord Blood America Inc.(OTCMKTS:CBAI) and IntelliCell BioSciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:SVFC) all have in common?
At some point, they all took on less than favorable financings. It appears most of them survived (some barely) those ill-advised transactions. Yet others, like IntelliCell BioSciences are now to attempt a come-back from sub-penny levels. This after accepting the terms and being sent into a virtual "death spiral" by 'institutional investors."
Making headlines, and pursuant to a judge's orders, Intellicell BioSciences delivered to one particular investment fund 53,568,400 common shares of Intellicell having a value of $91,912.42- which was owed to the firm which had provided them an early financing. The investment fund, Ironridge Global asked a judge to require IntelliCell to deliver all free-trading shares of common stock owed to Ironridge Global, in addition to full payment of all principal and interest owed under its Convertible Promissory Note.
The court also ordered that Ironridge's first-priority security interest over all assets of Intellicell would continue under its Security Agreement until IntelliCell fully complied with the court's orders. Ironridge Global had previously served a Notice of Foreclosure Sale on IntelliCell and its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Steven Victor, for failing to timely pay its loan when due.
After an arduous battle in the courts the company had previously announced that Judicial Hearing Officer Ira Gammerman, a long time former Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in a decision on each of Ironridge's claims against the Company, fully justified IntelliCell's position by ruling against each of Ironridge's and TCA's demands for monetary damages. The Company has always maintained that Ironridge was not entitled to any monetary claims in this matter and Judge Gammerman agreed. The Court made it abundantly clear that Ironridge (led by its principals John Kirkland and Richard Krieger) and TCA are not entitled to monetary damages and had no right to inappropriately broadcast to the world that it could sell IntelliCell's assets.
Adding to the intrugue here, just days ago, an artcile by Seeking Alpha contributor Micheal Morhamus had called attention to the fact that many small cap companies succumb to toxic financings as a way to stay alive, which can include below-market pricing, warrants and adverse 'ratcheting' provisions.
Morhamus, who has exposed various schemes and companies in the past as a contributor at the popular investment news portal, dove in for a closer look at Ironridge Global IV, Ltd.
According to Morhamus, the Wall Street fund has entered into more than 50 equity financing transactions in the last three years, but most of those deals may have come at the expense of the small retail investors who were left “holding the bag,” despite best efforts by management teams of to keep their emerging small-cap companies funded and alive.
Morhamus points out that here are at many other institutional investment firms which are in the business of "coming to the rescue" of desperate small cap companies who have little choice but to take money however they can, under whatever predatory terms they agree to. He writes that while those firms and their terms may not be fair they are also not illegal.
In recent days, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is rumored to be closing in on some of the more egregious offenders who may be manipulating prices in order to force more debt.
Previously IntelliCell's CEO, Dr. Steven Victor had stated: "We maintained from the very beginning that we would vigorously defend ourselves against all of John Kirkland's and Ironridge's claims for additional monetary damages and today the Company feels vindicated and is happy for its shareholders."
Unfortunately, says Morhamus, many of IntelliCell's early investors lost a small fortune along the way.
Reached for specific comments for the Seeking Alpha article, Dr. Victor said simply: "There are good guys in the space and there are bad guys in the space, like anything else."
Having survived, Dr. Victor says his regenerative medicine firm is now focused on making a comeback with a real technology and products that are all set to generate revenues.
"Anyone who wants to know what really happened and how much frustration the management team went through, can simply read through our filings. It's all there."
Other publicly traded companies, like Amarantus Biosciences, settled serious loan and financing debts by issuing Ironridge tens of millions of shares of common stock.
Retail biotech investors who want to learn more about what they can do to protect themselves from these types of scenarios can find Morhamus’ complete article at Seeking Alpha.
Developing...
http://www.biomedreports.com/20140819191932/are-qtoxic-financingsq-slaying-small-retail-investors.html
Are Ironridge's "Toxic Financings" Slaying Small Retail Investors?
What do publicly traded biotech companies like Genetic Technologies (NASDAQ::GENE), Rosetta Genomics (NASDAQ::ROSG), MEI Pharma Inc(NASDAQ::MEIP), Advaxis, Inc.(NASDAQ::ADXS), Amarantus Bioscience (OTCMKTS:AMBS), Pressure Biosciences (OTCMKTS:PBIO), Uluru Inc. (OTCMKTS:ULUR), PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID), Cord Blood America Inc.(OTCMKTS:CBAI) and IntelliCell BioSciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:SVFC) all have in common?
At some point, they all took on less than favorable financings. It appears most of them survived (some barely) those ill-advised transactions. Yet others, like IntelliCell BioSciences are now to attempt a come-back from sub-penny levels. This after accepting the terms and being sent into a virtual "death spiral" by 'institutional investors."
Making headlines, and pursuant to a judge's orders, Intellicell BioSciences delivered to one particular investment fund 53,568,400 common shares of Intellicell having a value of $91,912.42- which was owed to the firm which had provided them an early financing. The investment fund, Ironridge Global asked a judge to require IntelliCell to deliver all free-trading shares of common stock owed to Ironridge Global, in addition to full payment of all principal and interest owed under its Convertible Promissory Note.
The court also ordered that Ironridge's first-priority security interest over all assets of Intellicell would continue under its Security Agreement until IntelliCell fully complied with the court's orders. Ironridge Global had previously served a Notice of Foreclosure Sale on IntelliCell and its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Steven Victor, for failing to timely pay its loan when due.
After an arduous battle in the courts the company had previously announced that Judicial Hearing Officer Ira Gammerman, a long time former Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in a decision on each of Ironridge's claims against the Company, fully justified IntelliCell's position by ruling against each of Ironridge's and TCA's demands for monetary damages. The Company has always maintained that Ironridge was not entitled to any monetary claims in this matter and Judge Gammerman agreed. The Court made it abundantly clear that Ironridge (led by its principals John Kirkland and Richard Krieger) and TCA are not entitled to monetary damages and had no right to inappropriately broadcast to the world that it could sell IntelliCell's assets.
Adding to the intrugue here, just days ago, an artcile by Seeking Alpha contributor Micheal Morhamus had called attention to the fact that many small cap companies succumb to toxic financings as a way to stay alive, which can include below-market pricing, warrants and adverse 'ratcheting' provisions.
Morhamus, who has exposed various schemes and companies in the past as a contributor at the popular investment news portal, dove in for a closer look at Ironridge Global IV, Ltd.
According to Morhamus, the Wall Street fund has entered into more than 50 equity financing transactions in the last three years, but most of those deals may have come at the expense of the small retail investors who were left “holding the bag,” despite best efforts by management teams of to keep their emerging small-cap companies funded and alive.
Morhamus points out that here are at many other institutional investment firms which are in the business of "coming to the rescue" of desperate small cap companies who have little choice but to take money however they can, under whatever predatory terms they agree to. He writes that while those firms and their terms may not be fair they are also not illegal.
In recent days, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is rumored to be closing in on some of the more egregious offenders who may be manipulating prices in order to force more debt.
Previously IntelliCell's CEO, Dr. Steven Victor had stated: "We maintained from the very beginning that we would vigorously defend ourselves against all of John Kirkland's and Ironridge's claims for additional monetary damages and today the Company feels vindicated and is happy for its shareholders."
Unfortunately, says Morhamus, many of IntelliCell's early investors lost a small fortune along the way.
Reached for specific comments for the Seeking Alpha article, Dr. Victor said simply: "There are good guys in the space and there are bad guys in the space, like anything else."
Having survived, Dr. Victor says his regenerative medicine firm is now focused on making a comeback with a real technology and products that are all set to generate revenues.
"Anyone who wants to know what really happened and how much frustration the management team went through, can simply read through our filings. It's all there."
Other publicly traded companies, like Amarantus Biosciences, settled serious loan and financing debts by issuing Ironridge tens of millions of shares of common stock.
Retail biotech investors who want to learn more about what they can do to protect themselves from these types of scenarios can find Morhamus’ complete article at Seeking Alpha.
Developing...
http://www.biomedreports.com/20140819191932/are-qtoxic-financingsq-slaying-small-retail-investors.html
The fact that the arbitrator dismissed all the counter claims of innocence by inVentive bodes well for Cel-Sci.
Its clear that CVM has been doing a bang up job with the new CROs. Abundantly so!
What is most exciting is that if they win this $50M judgement against inVentive, the rest of Phase III is paid for. That would be awesome because as you know this very difficult trial is the most challenging part of making to commercialization and at least a $1B valuation.
Head and Neck cnacer is a $6+ Billion space. Our last clinical trial results can be repeated and the threshold for being accepted by the FDA is simply not that difficult. BUt.. you have to enroll and finish the trial. The rest seems like a no brainer.
AMBS and the toxic financing that nearly killed them.
Ironridge Global almost killed our company and this type of financing should be illegal:
http://tinyurl.com/seekingalpa
I agree. I just can't believe these Ironridge Global guys nearly killed the company completely. It's crazy that this is even legal. Everyone should read the article and post it elsewhere. This type of stuff kills little guy investors like us!
Did you guys see the new article about how ADSX was almost killed by a toxic financing by Ironridge? Sounds like these guys are scum that could be going to jail.
Its at SA and posted by the same guy who exposed other scams in his previous articles:
http://seekingalpha.com/author/michael-morhamus/instablog
Must Read New Article About SVFC and Ironridge Toxic Financing:
http://seekingalpha.com/author/michael-morhamus/instablog
The Small Retail Biotech Investor Usually Suffers Most In Toxic Financings
Most often on Wall Street, the small retail investor is left holding the bag, despite even some of the best efforts by the management teams of emerging small-cap companies to keep their firms funded and alive.
As one financial publication pointed out so eloquently, "Most small cap companies succumb to toxic financing as a way to stay alive, which can include below-market pricing, warrants and adverse 'ratcheting' provisions. The investors in these deals often try to push down the companies' shares in order to lower their warrant acquisition costs and maximize their profits at the expense of other shareholders."
While it is not clear, at this point, whether the institutional investing group known as Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. was actually involved in trying to "push down the shares" of the companies they invested in by using "black-hat" trading tactics, is well beyond our scope or opinion. Still, the track record of deals proudly displayed on their own website leaves one to wonder how so many financings could have turned so sour and resulted in so many lawsuits along the way.
While I did attempt to reach the firm for comments for this commentary, I was unsuccessful. The firm's own description of its business model describes Ironridge as "an institutional investor making direct equity investments in micro-cap public companies." According to the description at the bottom of various press releases, "The fund has entered into more than 50 equity financing transactions in the last three years, ranging from under a quarter million to $25 million each. Ironridge Global seeks to be a long-term financial partner, assisting public companies in financing growth and expansion by supplying innovative funding solutions and flexible capital."
An interesting YouTube video featuring John C. Kirkland, the Managing Director of Ironridge Global Partners being interviewed by Sully Sullivan on his Big Biz Show shows Mr. Kirkland explaining his firm's business. When deciding which companies to invest in, Kirkland explains: "We do a mix of technical and fundamental. Technical means 'what is the stock doing and fundamental means what is the company doing?' If the technicals are horrible, then the fundamentals better be fantastic. Usually it's right in the middle, you know? You've got to have decent technicals and potential… It makes Vegas look safe."
But based purely on the gambling analogy, it's hard to see where Ironridge ever lost on a deal they invested in. I'm sure any retail investor would love to gamble with those kind of odds.
In the biotechnology sector, which I follow most closely, it's nearly impossible to find a deal that didn't mostly benefit Mr. Kirkland's fund above most other investors, including founders and management. Those firms who took the largest sums from Ironridge, via financings of one form or another, appear to have been hurt by massive dilutions the most. Other which took small financings, appeared to have figured out ways in which to salvage the damage or at least stop the bleeding, but almost always at the expense of the common shareholder.
One Chartered Financial Analyst who contributes to Seeking Alpha Writer described taking money from IronRidge as the equivalent of having danced with the devil. "Keep in mind, they are buying with a lot of protection - they aren't investing at the market price. They make money even if other shareholders don't," wrote Alan Brochstein, C.F.A. Brochstein, who worked in the securities industry since 1986, primarily with the responsibility for managing investments in institutional environments warned his readers at the time that AVT, Inc. (OTC Markets: AVTC), which had been struggling to raise money, may have subjected themselves and their shareholders to several negative implications. "The press release makes it sound great, (but) the filing is the reality: Issuing shares at a 20% discount and subjecting themselves to price risk on their common stock," wrote Brochstein.
Therein lays the problem. While most small retail investors are led to believe that many of these proudly announced financings are positive developments which will provide much needed capital and help push products and pipelines forward, most don't have the qualifications or knowledge to understand that the companies they believe in are, in more and more cases, being sent into "toxic financings" and "death spirals."
In their defense, earlier this year, Ironridge announced that they had successfully concluded that same financing transaction with that automated retailing company which Brochstein warned his readers about. According to Ironridge's own news release, since the deal was entered into on July 2, 2013, AVT stock had doubled in price to $5.00 per share on January 8, 2014, the date when the transaction concluded.
While there are certainly many other deals, the biotech and healthcare sector features numerous historic deals listed between Ironridge and companies like Genetic Technologies (NASDAQ:GENE), Rosetta Genomics (NASDAQ:ROSG), MEI Pharma Inc(NASDAQ:MEIP), Advaxis, Inc.(NASDAQ:ADXS), Amarantus Bioscience (OTCMKTS:AMBS), Pressure Biosciences (OTCMKTS:PBIO), Uluru Inc. (OTCMKTS:ULUR), PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID), Cord Blood America Inc.(OTCMKTS:CBAI) and IntelliCell BioSciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:SVFC).
Many of those companies are big board listed and thriving despite having taken unfavorable financing deals along the way, but others are now trading at sub-penny levels after suffering mass dilutions followed by nearly insurmountable selling pressure. In multiple instances, Ironridge has attempted to foreclose on the companies they had lent money to; just as they felt it had the legal right to do.
The CEO of one such firm, IntelliCell BioSciences, has made no secret of his unpleasant experience with Ironridge. Dr. Steven Victor sued and successfully got a favorable ruling against Ironridge earlier this year.
Following that ruling, Victor stated: "We maintained from the very beginning that we would vigorously defend ourselves against all of John Kirkland's and Ironridge's claims for additional monetary damages and today the Company feels vindicated and is happy for its shareholders."
Unfortunately, many of IntelliCell's early investors lost a small fortune along the way.
Reached for specific comments for this article, Dr. Victor said simply: "There are good guys in the space and there are bad guys in the space, like anything else."
Having survived, Dr. Victor says his regenerative medicine firm is now focused on making a comeback with a real technology and products that will generate revenues.
"Anyone who wants to know what really happened and how much frustration the management team went through, can simply read through our filings. It's all there."
Other publicly traded companies, like Amarantus Biosciences, settled serious loan and financing debts by issuing Ironridge tens of millions of shares of common stock.
Ironridge is not alone in their business model. There are at many other institutional investment firms which are in the business of "coming to the rescue" of desperate small cap companies who have little choice but to take money however they can, under whatever predatory terms they agree to. Those firms and their terms may not be fair but they are also not illegal.
In recent days, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is rumored to be closing in on some of the more egregious offenders who may be manipulating prices in order to force more debt. But the weight of proving such manipulation and other illegal trading tactics often proves to be difficult; particularly since most of those activities take place using off-shore broker dealers and other entities.
What has happened to Ironridge lately is also somewhat of a mystery. When cross checked via LinkedIN, the names of the individuals on the management team that appear at ironridgeglobal.com, seem to indicate that most have moved on to other firms very recently.
While some on Wall Street believe that Ironridge has seen its final days or may have simply disbanded, an oddly timed officially shared link on the firm's Facebook page appears to state otherwise. That link which was posted just days ago on August 6th, points to a scribd.com file that displays a Certificate of Good Standing for Ironridge Global Partners, LLC from the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.
The lesson for "the little guy" retail investors here is simple. Learn to read the terms of the financings your portfolio companies agree to. There are two dance partners in every transaction. The lender and the management team which agreed to do the deal. Hold each one accountable by choosing to be an investor or taking your chips off the table as quickly as possible following an unfavorable financing.
The Small Retail Biotech Investor Usually Suffers Most In Toxic Financings
Most often on Wall Street, the small retail investor is left holding the bag, despite even some of the best efforts by the management teams of emerging small-cap companies to keep their firms funded and alive.
As one financial publication pointed out so eloquently, "Most small cap companies succumb to toxic financing as a way to stay alive, which can include below-market pricing, warrants and adverse 'ratcheting' provisions. The investors in these deals often try to push down the companies' shares in order to lower their warrant acquisition costs and maximize their profits at the expense of other shareholders."
While it is not clear, at this point, whether the institutional investing group known as Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. was actually involved in trying to "push down the shares" of the companies they invested in by using "black-hat" trading tactics, is well beyond our scope or opinion. Still, the track record of deals proudly displayed on their own website leaves one to wonder how so many financings could have turned so sour and resulted in so many lawsuits along the way.
While I did attempt to reach the firm for comments for this commentary, I was unsuccessful. The firm's own description of its business model describes Ironridge as "an institutional investor making direct equity investments in micro-cap public companies." According to the description at the bottom of various press releases, "The fund has entered into more than 50 equity financing transactions in the last three years, ranging from under a quarter million to $25 million each. Ironridge Global seeks to be a long-term financial partner, assisting public companies in financing growth and expansion by supplying innovative funding solutions and flexible capital."
An interesting YouTube video featuring John C. Kirkland, the Managing Director of Ironridge Global Partners being interviewed by Sully Sullivan on his Big Biz Show shows Mr. Kirkland explaining his firm's business. When deciding which companies to invest in, Kirkland explains: "We do a mix of technical and fundamental. Technical means 'what is the stock doing and fundamental means what is the company doing?' If the technicals are horrible, then the fundamentals better be fantastic. Usually it's right in the middle, you know? You've got to have decent technicals and potential… It makes Vegas look safe."
But based purely on the gambling analogy, it's hard to see where Ironridge ever lost on a deal they invested in. I'm sure any retail investor would love to gamble with those kind of odds.
In the biotechnology sector, which I follow most closely, it's nearly impossible to find a deal that didn't mostly benefit Mr. Kirkland's fund above most other investors, including founders and management. Those firms who took the largest sums from Ironridge, via financings of one form or another, appear to have been hurt by massive dilutions the most. Other which took small financings, appeared to have figured out ways in which to salvage the damage or at least stop the bleeding, but almost always at the expense of the common shareholder.
One Chartered Financial Analyst who contributes to Seeking Alpha Writer described taking money from IronRidge as the equivalent of having danced with the devil. "Keep in mind, they are buying with a lot of protection - they aren't investing at the market price. They make money even if other shareholders don't," wrote Alan Brochstein, C.F.A. Brochstein, who worked in the securities industry since 1986, primarily with the responsibility for managing investments in institutional environments warned his readers at the time that AVT, Inc. (OTC Markets: AVTC), which had been struggling to raise money, may have subjected themselves and their shareholders to several negative implications. "The press release makes it sound great, (but) the filing is the reality: Issuing shares at a 20% discount and subjecting themselves to price risk on their common stock," wrote Brochstein.
Therein lays the problem. While most small retail investors are led to believe that many of these proudly announced financings are positive developments which will provide much needed capital and help push products and pipelines forward, most don't have the qualifications or knowledge to understand that the companies they believe in are, in more and more cases, being sent into "toxic financings" and "death spirals."
In their defense, earlier this year, Ironridge announced that they had successfully concluded that same financing transaction with that automated retailing company which Brochstein warned his readers about. According to Ironridge's own news release, since the deal was entered into on July 2, 2013, AVT stock had doubled in price to $5.00 per share on January 8, 2014, the date when the transaction concluded.
While there are certainly many other deals, the biotech and healthcare sector features numerous historic deals listed between Ironridge and companies like Genetic Technologies (NASDAQ:GENE), Rosetta Genomics (NASDAQ:ROSG), MEI Pharma Inc(NASDAQ:MEIP), Advaxis, Inc.(NASDAQ:ADXS), Amarantus Bioscience (OTCMKTS:AMBS), Pressure Biosciences (OTCMKTS:PBIO), Uluru Inc. (OTCMKTS:ULUR), PositiveID Corporation (OTCMKTS:PSID), Cord Blood America Inc.(OTCMKTS:CBAI) and IntelliCell BioSciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:SVFC).
Many of those companies are big board listed and thriving despite having taken unfavorable financing deals along the way, but others are now trading at sub-penny levels after suffering mass dilutions followed by nearly insurmountable selling pressure. In multiple instances, Ironridge has attempted to foreclose on the companies they had lent money to; just as they felt it had the legal right to do.
The CEO of one such firm, IntelliCell BioSciences, has made no secret of his unpleasant experience with Ironridge. Dr. Steven Victor sued and successfully got a favorable ruling against Ironridge earlier this year.
Following that ruling, Victor stated: "We maintained from the very beginning that we would vigorously defend ourselves against all of John Kirkland's and Ironridge's claims for additional monetary damages and today the Company feels vindicated and is happy for its shareholders."
Unfortunately, many of IntelliCell's early investors lost a small fortune along the way.
Reached for specific comments for this article, Dr. Victor said simply: "There are good guys in the space and there are bad guys in the space, like anything else."
Having survived, Dr. Victor says his regenerative medicine firm is now focused on making a comeback with a real technology and products that will generate revenues.
"Anyone who wants to know what really happened and how much frustration the management team went through, can simply read through our filings. It's all there."
Other publicly traded companies, like Amarantus Biosciences, settled serious loan and financing debts by issuing Ironridge tens of millions of shares of common stock.
Ironridge is not alone in their business model. There are at many other institutional investment firms which are in the business of "coming to the rescue" of desperate small cap companies who have little choice but to take money however they can, under whatever predatory terms they agree to. Those firms and their terms may not be fair but they are also not illegal.
In recent days, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is rumored to be closing in on some of the more egregious offenders who may be manipulating prices in order to force more debt. But the weight of proving such manipulation and other illegal trading tactics often proves to be difficult; particularly since most of those activities take place using off-shore broker dealers and other entities.
What has happened to Ironridge lately is also somewhat of a mystery. When cross checked via LinkedIN, the names of the individuals on the management team that appear at ironridgeglobal.com, seem to indicate that most have moved on to other firms very recently.
While some on Wall Street believe that Ironridge has seen its final days or may have simply disbanded, an oddly timed officially shared link on the firm's Facebook page appears to state otherwise. That link which was posted just days ago on August 6th, points to a scribd.com file that displays a Certificate of Good Standing for Ironridge Global Partners, LLC from the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.
The lesson for "the little guy" retail investors here is simple. Learn to read the terms of the financings your portfolio companies agree to. There are two dance partners in every transaction. The lender and the management team which agreed to do the deal. Hold each one accountable by choosing to be an investor or taking your chips off the table as quickly as possible following an unfavorable financing.
http://seekingalpha.com/author/michael-morhamus/instablog
$ZLCS News: Big Pharma Partnership Opportunity (Gapping Pre-Market)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-the-radar-big-pharma-partnership-opportunity-for-zalicustargacept-and-acadia-2013-10-31
$ZLCS News: Big Pharma Partnership Opportunity (Gapping Pre-Market)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-the-radar-big-pharma-partnership-opportunity-for-zalicustargacept-and-acadia-2013-10-31
Another big hint that data from $ZLCS will be awesome and that big pharma will be looking to partner with them again:
http://www.elsevierbi.com/mkt/Conf/TAP2013/PresentingCos
READ ALL THE DETAILS!
yes
Just saw this posted as a tweet by @BioMedReports:
News before its official: Looks like $ZLCS was just awarded a patent
http://patents.justia.com/assignee/zalicus-pharmaceuticals-ltd
Video: BMPI Shares Breaking out
Stock due to be uplisted, so shares are starting to run higher.
$PSTI - Expect big fund buying on this news
Similar to what we see in the U.S. when a stock is listed on the Russell indexes, many funds are required to buy in. That is now set to happen to PSTI according to today's news--
Pluristem Joins Both the TA-75 and TA-100 Indexes on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pluristem-joins-both-ta-75-152954622.html
Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc. (PSTI) (TASE:PLTR), a leading developer of placenta-based cell therapies, announced today it has been informed by the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) that its shares are now listed in both the Tel-Aviv-75 (TA-75) and the Tel Aviv-100 (TA-100) Index effective December 16, 2012. The TA-100 index tracks the top 100 companies listed on TASE weighted by market capitalization.
"We are proud to be included in this important Tel Aviv Stock Exchange index and to become one of the 100 most highly capitalized companies on the exchange," said Zami Aberman, Chairman and CEO of Pluristem. "Our inclusion in this index positions us as one of the top Israeli-based biotechnology companies and is another step in our evolution as a leading global publicly traded biotech company. Additionally, this designation places us on the radar screen of many Israeli fund managers, in particular those who follow and track this index."
$PSTI - Expect big fund buying on this news
Similar to what we see in the U.S. when a stock is listed on the Russell indexes, many funds are required to buy in. That is now set to happen to PSTI according to today's news--
Pluristem Joins Both the TA-75 and TA-100 Indexes on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pluristem-joins-both-ta-75-152954622.html
Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc. (PSTI) (TASE:PLTR), a leading developer of placenta-based cell therapies, announced today it has been informed by the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) that its shares are now listed in both the Tel-Aviv-75 (TA-75) and the Tel Aviv-100 (TA-100) Index effective December 16, 2012. The TA-100 index tracks the top 100 companies listed on TASE weighted by market capitalization.
"We are proud to be included in this important Tel Aviv Stock Exchange index and to become one of the 100 most highly capitalized companies on the exchange," said Zami Aberman, Chairman and CEO of Pluristem. "Our inclusion in this index positions us as one of the top Israeli-based biotechnology companies and is another step in our evolution as a leading global publicly traded biotech company. Additionally, this designation places us on the radar screen of many Israeli fund managers, in particular those who follow and track this index."
$MDGN Rising After Group of Renowned Experts Affirm Potential of Company's Treatment of Hepatitis
Stock chart looks good- ready for the next leg up:
Reuters Story: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/medgenics-rising-group-renowned-experts-135401339.html
$MDGN Rising After Group of Renowned Experts Affirm Potential of Company's Treatment of Hepatitis
Stock chart looks good- ready for the next leg up:
Reuters Story: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/medgenics-rising-group-renowned-experts-135401339.html
$BMPI breaking out big time on Justin Bieber news!
This thing is gonna go nuts! 8K filing shows that company just signed a promotional agreement with Justin Bieber.
$4 price target had been placed on this stock by analysts!
Stock up 25% and climbing!
Last Bieber stock climbed 500% in one week!
$BMPI starting to run on Justin Bieber news!
This thing is gonna go nuts! 8K filing shows that company just signed a promotional agreement with Justin Bieber.
$4 price target had been placed on this stock by analysts!
Stock up 25% and climbing!
BMPI- Reuters story says $4 price target on $.40 stock!
Acceleron Reiterates "Buy" on BillMyParents Inc. Says Major Marketing Initiatives and Positive Catalysts Are On Tap
Read the story on the yahoo finance page for BMPI
Acceleron Equity Research has today reissued their BUY rating on shares of BillMyparents Inc. (BMPI) and re-affirmed their price $4/share price target in a new report.
The research firm states that they have more clarity regarding the anticipated high visibility/high impact marketing initiatives which are set to be launched for BMPI`s offering of a prepaid MasterCard designed for teenagers.
"We now believe that major celebrity driven initiatives are set to launch in the very near term and that these initiatives will help BMPI`s product stand out more clearly as a differentiated play in the prepaid card payment industry."
The detailed report continues, stating:
"During the last month, BMPI has announced two key additions which bring extensive experience along with business planning to shore up their new business development teams. The first is longtime strategic business advisor and former CPA Seymour Siegel and the second is Mr. Brian Thompson, a seasoned finance executive who has held senior level positions in high growth companies generating revenues of over $1 billion. These gentlemen join entrepreneur Jesse Itzler on the Company`s Board of Directors. Itzler is the co-founder and former Vice Chairman of Marquis Jet Partners, the world`s largest private jet card company which sold to Net Jets/Berkshire Hathaway in 2010. We see these appointments as key developments which continue to provide strong indications that BMPI is not only aiming, but actively positioning to become a much bigger player in the prepaid credit card space. BMPI has set a target to have 1 million users within the next 24 months and 3 million users by the end of 2014. Continued execution should attract a significantly higher valuation for the discounted shares of the stock.
"Although US teenagers wield about $200 billion in buying power, card penetration is thin in this segment. Room for growth is borne out by the fact that loading on prepaid cards is expected to surge to $167 billion in 2014 from $71 billion in 2011."
Qualified investors may download a copy of the update report at: http://bit.ly/BMPIReport
Reuters: $4 price target on $.40 BMPI stock!
Acceleron Reiterates "Buy" on BillMyParents Inc. Says Major Marketing Initiatives and Positive Catalysts Are On Tap
Read the story here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/acceleron-reiterates-buy-billmyparents-inc-120302927.html
Reuters: $4 price target on $.40 BMPI stock!
Acceleron Reiterates "Buy" on BillMyParents Inc. Says Major Marketing Initiatives and Positive Catalysts Are On Tap
Read the story here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/acceleron-reiterates-buy-billmyparents-inc-120302927.html
TKMR up BIG in pre-market
Tiny Tekmira (TKMR) Lands $65M Settlement Plus $10M in Near-Term Milestone Payments from Alnylam
On the eve of their transformational legal trial, emerging developer Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation (TKMR) (TKM.TO) announced after the market close on Monday that they had settled all litigation matters between the firm and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ALNY) - whose shares dropped -4.23% After Hours to $15.44 on the news.
Tekmira, which closed Monday`s session with a $70M market cap will receive $65 million within 10 days and is eligible to receive $10 million in near-term milestone payments expected to be received in 2013.
For the speculators who were betting on a positive outcome for the pending trial, the impact should be understandibly positive.
Tekmira is now funded with over $4.00 per share in cash alone thanks to their friends at Alnylam. Perhaps more importantly, observers who know the sector argue that the key settlement now positions Tekmira as the undisputed leading delivery owner of RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics and enables them to soon to have the largest RNAi drug opportunity.
"The settlement and restructuring announced yesterday gives us, and the entire RNAi field, clarity around the intellectual property that protects our lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology. Building upon our strong balance sheet and accomplishments to date, we are confident that we can continue to create significant, sustainable value for our shareholders. With our cash runway now extending into 2015, we are excited about our plans to aggressively advance multiple products into human clinical trials," said Dr. Mark J. Murray, Tekmira`s President and CEO.
Alnylam apparently now admits that Tekmira owns LNP, the undisputed leading delivery, the only delivery in the clinic, but it also facilitates Alnylam to can go back to a $1 billion dollar market cap which is mostly derived from their positive data from TTR02, which the street estimates a successful drug would do $2 billion in revenue.
Meanwhile Tekmira now has 13 non-exclusive licenses to develop and commercialize RNAi therapeutics based on Alnylam`s leading payload technology. While platform companies are a more sensible business, less risk with short term revenue, Wall Street loves the blue sky of a successful muti billion dollar drug. This is part of the reason that ALNY tacked on $500M of market cap when reporting recent interim phase 2 data.
In addition to the settlement news, two huge drivers for TKMR`s stock are immediate partnering deals and TKMR moving into a phase 2 in Oncology. If ALNY can tack on $500M for an orphan drug TKMR should tack on a significantly greater amount, making it at minimum a $35.00 stock.
Granted, it will take a bit of time for this discovery to take hold with smart money and institutional buyers. Tekmira goes to Phase II Clinical trials next year. While we wait, it is anticipated that partnering deals of great significance will take place.
Even before ALNY reported their positive clinical data, there is little doubt that companies began to line up to deals with TKMR-- the go-to RNAi delivery company. It`s logical that given the circumstances, the leading health care companies and their business development experts no longer have to spend costly time and energy with their legal departments. Now that ALNY has reported "earth shattering" data, Big Pharma partners should begin clawing at Tekmira`s door with fatter terms and offers of their own..
Consider that ALNY added $500M to their market cap for a phase one treatment for TTR mediated amyloidosis. What might the market do over Tekmira`s PLK 1 causing tumor cell death? Last August the company reported interim positive results, but the knockout is scheduled to come soon when the final Phase I data is unveiled. The interim data from that study certainly points toward game-changing recognition for Tekmira.
Frankly, it now appears that the greatest risk to Tekmira is a take out. We point to acquisition deals like Merck`s billion-dollar deal for Sirna which took place longl before the RNAi space was de-risked. It`s hard to imagine that the market will let Tekmira`s stock languish. TKMR shares are suddenly a bargain under $10.00
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tiny-tekmira-lands-65m-settlement-124603532.html
Tiny Tekmira (TKMR) Lands $65M Settlement Plus $10M in Near-Term Milestone Payments from Alnylam
On the eve of their transformational legal trial, emerging developer Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation (TKMR) (TKM.TO) announced after the market close on Monday that they had settled all litigation matters between the firm and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ALNY) - whose shares dropped -4.23% After Hours to $15.44 on the news.
Tekmira, which closed Monday`s session with a $70M market cap will receive $65 million within 10 days and is eligible to receive $10 million in near-term milestone payments expected to be received in 2013.
For the speculators who were betting on a positive outcome for the pending trial, the impact should be understandibly positive.
Tekmira is now funded with over $4.00 per share in cash alone thanks to their friends at Alnylam. Perhaps more importantly, observers who know the sector argue that the key settlement now positions Tekmira as the undisputed leading delivery owner of RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics and enables them to soon to have the largest RNAi drug opportunity.
"The settlement and restructuring announced yesterday gives us, and the entire RNAi field, clarity around the intellectual property that protects our lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology. Building upon our strong balance sheet and accomplishments to date, we are confident that we can continue to create significant, sustainable value for our shareholders. With our cash runway now extending into 2015, we are excited about our plans to aggressively advance multiple products into human clinical trials," said Dr. Mark J. Murray, Tekmira`s President and CEO.
Alnylam apparently now admits that Tekmira owns LNP, the undisputed leading delivery, the only delivery in the clinic, but it also facilitates Alnylam to can go back to a $1 billion dollar market cap which is mostly derived from their positive data from TTR02, which the street estimates a successful drug would do $2 billion in revenue.
Meanwhile Tekmira now has 13 non-exclusive licenses to develop and commercialize RNAi therapeutics based on Alnylam`s leading payload technology. While platform companies are a more sensible business, less risk with short term revenue, Wall Street loves the blue sky of a successful muti billion dollar drug. This is part of the reason that ALNY tacked on $500M of market cap when reporting recent interim phase 2 data.
In addition to the settlement news, two huge drivers for TKMR`s stock are immediate partnering deals and TKMR moving into a phase 2 in Oncology. If ALNY can tack on $500M for an orphan drug TKMR should tack on a significantly greater amount, making it at minimum a $35.00 stock.
Granted, it will take a bit of time for this discovery to take hold with smart money and institutional buyers. Tekmira goes to Phase II Clinical trials next year. While we wait, it is anticipated that partnering deals of great significance will take place.
Even before ALNY reported their positive clinical data, there is little doubt that companies began to line up to deals with TKMR-- the go-to RNAi delivery company. It`s logical that given the circumstances, the leading health care companies and their business development experts no longer have to spend costly time and energy with their legal departments. Now that ALNY has reported "earth shattering" data, Big Pharma partners should begin clawing at Tekmira`s door with fatter terms and offers of their own..
Consider that ALNY added $500M to their market cap for a phase one treatment for TTR mediated amyloidosis. What might the market do over Tekmira`s PLK 1 causing tumor cell death? Last August the company reported interim positive results, but the knockout is scheduled to come soon when the final Phase I data is unveiled. The interim data from that study certainly points toward game-changing recognition for Tekmira.
Frankly, it now appears that the greatest risk to Tekmira is a take out. We point to acquisition deals like Merck`s billion-dollar deal for Sirna which took place longl before the RNAi space was de-risked. It`s hard to imagine that the market will let Tekmira`s stock languish. TKMR shares are suddenly a bargain under $10.00
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tiny-tekmira-lands-65m-settlement-124603532.html
VRNG News! Up in Pre-Market NEW LAWSUIT
Vringo Goes After Chinese Telecom Giant ZTE Corporation for IP License Payments
Earlier today Vringo (VRNG) filed an 8-k with the SEC challenging ZTE to license patents for technology ZTE has been using since 2002. The patents cover Vringo`s proprietary technologies that are considered essential to infrastructure equipment and mobile stations compliant with GSM and GPRS specifications. In the SEC filing Vringo further states that if ZTE does not pay for the right to use its patents, Vringo will pursue all legal remedies available.
ZTE reported making over $11 Billion US dollars (RBM 93 Billion) from its infrastructure and handset business in 2011 alone.
Despite having declared it own patents to international standards for others to license, ZTE has ignored paying for licenses to patented technology it uses in its own products.
In January this year ZTE settled with Ericsson for $676 million and an ongoing license with undisclosed amounts going forward.
Vringo has over 500 patents and patent applications which were acquired from Lycos, Inc. and Nokia (NOK), and developed internally.
In August, Vringo acquired a portfolio of patents for nokia that cover cellular infrastructure, including communication management, data and signal transmission mobility management, radio resource managment and services.
Some of the acquired patents have been declared essential by Nokia to wireless communications standards such as 3G and 4G and related technologies and included GSM and WCDMA
Given that U.S. courts have clearly been kind to American companies whose patents have been infringed by foreign firms, with Apple (AAPL) being awarded over $1 billion in a settlement against Samsung (SSNLF), Vringo seems to have some leverage over ZTE to pay up, or have the battle in court.