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.
SK wasn't as precise as I would have preferred on the time frame, but FY is a reasonable interpretation. But whether he meant this calendar year, or this FY, he was perfectly clear in "partnerships" plural, and that they would be brought to fruition.
From the March 7, 2014 earnings call...
While specifics cannot be discussed until deals are culminated, what I can say is that we have seen a high level of interest from potential partners in the bavituximab program as a whole, in collaborating with us to evaluate bavituximab in combination with other novel immunotherapies, in collaborating with us on new areas and in our contract manufacturing services.
With the Phase III study now underway, our main interest in partnering for the bavituximab program would be to allow us to be more aggressive in advancing new clinical indications, namely moving new indications in the later-stage development in areas such as breast and liver cancer. And we look forward to updating you as partnerships are brought to fruition over the coming year.
Add to that the statements of SK that they want to bring partnerships to fruition and this in the current FY..
Presumably, JB will be subpoenaed for a deposition in the case against CSM. If her actions are as nefarious as has been suggested, will she invoke the Fifth Amendment? And if so, would the court allow an adverse inference from her refusal to testify?
So, if JB lawyered up then she must have done so because either CSM or an official investigational body has driven her to do so. I think CSM sits in a bad position. Any lawsuit against JB would attract negative attention and could lead to 'unwanted' disclosures that may either intervene with possible settlements with PPHM if that would still be an option or damage their case in the PPHM vs CSM lawsuit on the dose switching.
Or how about "tampered with by an outside contractor?" Some elements in the "financial media" have had a field day using misleading terms which falsely impute that the company somehow "screwed up" the trial, all the while ignoring the highly relevant part of the story that the company was able to salvage the trial after the tampering and move into Phase III.
The correct terms to explain the trial are tainted or compromised given the intentional dose switching. Botched implies incompetence which is not even appropriate to describe the CRO in this case given the deliberate act.
CP - I think you hit the nail on the head: "OLD TIMES." It seems nearly impossible for many investors (or at least me) to interpret market signals under the new back box paradigm. I wonder if the new obsession with "liquidity" is not harmful to the long term investor. I also question the market maker exemption to short selling. When you couple that with algo trading, there are virtually unlimited shares to play with. I am beginning to suspect that algo trading had a lot to do with driving the price and volume in March, and that there may have been no other underlying reason for that level of activity. There have been comments about supply and demand. But is any of that relevant when the supply curve becomes skewed to nearly infinity?
I think you are using OLD TIMES PUBLIC MARKET KNOWLEDGE.
Those balances are gone since long, together with a few others.
You have no idea what algorithms can do, and certainly on NASDAQ in combination with several ECN access points. I could show you around and you'd probably sell all your stock of all companies or get a nervous break-down, whatever comes first.
If such a new box with new algo's is started up those who build it sometimes even don't sleep for several weeks just thinking about what would happen when it goes wrong. (See news beginning this year for an example that costed Billions) because those things can have bugs that will only show up at a certain stress point or in certain combinations, etc.
I am going to make a bold statement here: A box can move PPHM to 1 cent or to 5$ dollar in one day for NO REASON. What about them (whatever)s!
Good point. Getting a monetary award might be easier than collecting it. Seems like there is a lot of money on the line, too. All imo.
I'm not sure insurance covers an intentional act, if that's what ends up being shown.
Anyone have any idea how much insurance CSM has? That would seem to be the limiting factor on a settlement.
Nah, they wouldn't do that, wonder how that CSM case is unfolding, if my recollection serves me right, discovery to be made by December. LEt's see if we settle out before then.
During the March CC, didn't SK say something to the effect that there would be a partner this year? That would certainly move the PPS, and there isn't much time left to "this year." All imo.
No-one knows when there will be news on liver, breast, or "dozens" of pre-clinical collaborations. But there should be a lot of news coming as we await the SUNRISE event driven look-ins.
We do know when(Oct.30-Nov.1) we will receive more information on the interim results of the first line NSCLC trial(Bavi/Pem/Carb). It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against the SOC Pem/Carb combination in regard to safety. There may also be some interesting indications of PFS...but perhaps very little MOS data at this point.
Those are the two big ones. It will take something to generate sustained buying interest. Otherwise, they just walk the price back down after each transient increase.
One has to wonder if a Partnership and Outright P3 approval are the only things which will help the PPS
How does anyone establish a "grip" on a lack of buying interest?
20 consecutive days under a million .
if we don't rise sharply in the first two hours or drop out of bed sharply
in the same period then the deal has already been done and price agreed.
we are sold and who ever has a grip on the pps is in control.
nobody on the board and all the pumpers are gone nothing left to do but wait.
we should know by lunch hour
Was there a 10-Q for July? July is usually the 10-K.
Sabby Capital. It's in the 10Q from July. The question is, what does Sabby know that we don't or who is he parking the shares for?
I can't recall what the common PPS was at the time, but there was no secondary market for the preferred since it was an IPO. Now the preferred trade under PPHMP, which is $0.50 below the offering price of $25.00.
They were able to sell 400,000 last time without any issues and I believe the PPS was lower then.
Curious how they are going to sell the new shares at $25 when the existing preferred are trading at $24.50.
Countdown to another large block of PPHMP used to finance the company: 7 days
Four digit trades at this price and volume?
Seriously?
The problem with buying interest, imo, is who is going to be getting in at this point? I suspect most biotech savvy retail buyers have already accumulated all the shares that they want. And for some strange reason, all the day traders and algo bots made a hasty retreat immediately following the inexplicable price and volume surge in March.
PPHM stockholders seem to be immune to the dips since there are obviously few sellers. On the other hand, few buyers as well. We need to get back to higher highs instead of lower lows.
I don't think anyone has argued that more dilution has no impact.
I feel bad for you that you have money invested and believe that being diluted more because of low valuation has no impact on your investment. Irritating to think we have so much potential, but are valued so poorly. That is not ok with me.
No argument on the number of shares. Dilution always erodes at shareholder value. But the price volatility is another thing. The market just loves to kick these kind of stocks around and unless you have special insight, you could get shaken out of your position trying to play the swings. Having said that, more power to those who do and profit from it!
Bottom line: The more shares you have to sell now does make a difference and to think otherwise is just not thinking correctly.
Yep. I know the feeling. I bought TCLN at about $0.25 and sold at lot of my shares at $1.00 and then watched it run to $16 and back down, having sold none of the remaining shares.
I can think of something worse that is not hypothetical. Buying < $1 watching it rise to > $5 and waking up to black Monday. Having sold nothing.
Easy there chief...your shares are worth whatever price you sell them at. Otherwise, PPS is abstract.
I wish you guys would stop saying PPS is irrelevant. ATM, however small right now, means my shares are worth less. Stop saying stupid stuff it detracts from all the valuable input.
CP - agree that the PPS is somewhat irrelevant whether $1.60 or $3.00 (other than $1.60 being a better entry point) since it is still undervalued both short and long term. Playing the dips is very risky. There would be nothing worse than selling at $3.00 then waking up one day and seeing the PPS open over $5.00 and take off with no turning back.
I am actually not at all PPS focussed, actually I don't care about the PPS until the day I sell because otherwise people make investment mistakes due to all the manipulation.
The PPS can be manipulated but in general the facts are not. PPHM has a huge potential that isn't yet translated into PPS but we know it is there. So others know to and therefore some form of PPS manipulation is going on or we would be at 1.60$
I would hate to sell based on those PPS peeks and dips and ignore the PPHM potential of which the real gain/leverage is starts on the first event that guarantees income.
CP- Your partnership time frame seems to be on point. During the time that AbbVie was interested in 2012, the original Phase II results could have led to early approval and sales of product. But since the CSM errors in the Phase II caused a setback in the program of 3-4 years, one could envision partnership interest waning in the face of a longer horizon. But what is puzzling to me is why at least one of the partnership candidates wouldn't try to cut in line and catch the others sleeping. Equally puzzling is the runup leading to March and then sudden sharp drop in both price and volume. One guesses that there was either rumors on the street of an early partnership, or it was just an orchestrated pump and dump related to the first preferred offering. I'd be interested in your take on seemingly baseless change in price action since March.
Yes, but don't expect it tomorrow.
I still envisage first partnership Q1/Q2 2015 and not earlier but there may be some indication in the coming periods (maybe not direct but indirect on a CC or annual).
The apparent sabotage, or to put it more charitably "inexplicable tampering," at CSM speaks for itself. What strikes me as bizarre about the Class Action appeal is why the plaintiff defiantly persists in the face of being thoroughly (and repeatedly) discredited at the Trial Court and now rejected for inclusion in the mediation program at the Appeals Court.
Clearly PPHM is not going to "settle" for even a penny with the frivolous plaintiff, and there really doesn't seem to be a genuine issue for the appeals court to consider, so the plaintiff is simply throwing good money after bad with no apparent hope for victory. But why?
The only logical answer seems to be a desire to throw another wrench the machine (by tying up resources and forcing the company to report "open litigation" to bankers and potential partners) as PPHM continues to move closer to market. Meanwhile, any positive news on company is instantly (and predictably) greeted with a suspiciously timed hit piece from a market incompetent blogger with access to a bully pulpit who is notorious for such shenanigans. All things considered, one could almost make the argument that multiple parties are deliberately trying to slow the company's progress by any means possible. But why all that effort against a company alleged by some to have nothing of value? All imo, of course.
Also notice that Carlton said we would get to the bottom of this and apparently so they were already doing on September 20th, 2012 and PPHM knew they were dealing with:
A) J. Bleecker
B) Intentional dose switching
C) Control and 1mg/kg Bavi arm switching
So one must see the COMPLETE series of actions/events and behaviours following as of THEN in view of the fact that PPHM knew on 20 Sept 2012.
This is also what kills the argument of the class action appeal.
CSM's exposure on the tampering lawsuit is huge, and longer they wait to settle, the higher the potential damages for loss in time to market since that too will become an easily quantifiable figure upon FDA approval. If the tampering allegations are well founded, they may also want to settle sooner rather than later to avoid discovery and a deposition of the project manager responsible.
All completely imo.
Let's assume no reverse split and the company had 70million at the start of phase 3
Can anyone here list any potential additional cash beside the preferred stock.
Law suit cost -outflow
Overhead - outflow
Other trials -outflow
I have to believe a partnership of some kind is in the making to make up for any short fall.
Law suit selletment in the making
They are confident with the our final results and are not worried.
What do think.
Peregrine's attorney probably told them they are not getting a penny so it goes to the judges without further discussion. The plaintiffs have already had several bites at the apple, all of which were discredited by the trial court, so it's hard to imagine the appeals court giving them another chance to advance their ridiculous theory. Therefore, one has to wonder why they persist in such an apparent exercise in futility...unless, of course, the goal is simply disruption with no real expectation of a favorable verdict.
It looks like the clingy class-action shakedown artists just got told to go pound sand...
Case: 14-55882 08/08/2014 ID: 9198551 DktEntry: 11 Page: 1 of 1
NATHANIEL L. ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, and JAMES T. FAHEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-55882
D.C. No. 8:12-cv-01647-PSG-FMO
U.S. District Court for Central California, Santa Ana
ORDER
This case is not selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program.
Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant further settlement discussions.
The briefing schedule previously established by the court remains in effect.
I figured $4.70. I must be a basher!
In a research note published August 11, Roth Capital analyst Joseph Pantginis issued a note in which he reiterated a Buy rating on Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (PPHM) with a $5 price target..
It's hard to quibble with the day to day value of an undervalued stock since it is always too low...OTOH the shenanigans that go on in today's opaque markets are pathetic. PPS isn't even loosely tethered to supply, demand, or actual shares available. The only way we will get close to realistic pricing is when the "insiders" know that real buyers are lining up outside the door and they can get burned playing with counterfeit shares. All imo.
djohn, the people who count, the BPs, monitor Peregrine like they monitor all the other promising little biotechs. I'm sure the eyebrows went up a millimeter at the latest preclinical. Are they reaching for their checkbooks? Maybe not yet, but if the Bavi-Yervoy trial ever produces good news, I bet they will. If Sunrise produces good news, I know they will.
So, today belongs to the day traders. Don't begrudge them their fun. We'll have ours later. Maybe a lot of it.
It's not just "mice" news in a vacuum. From an investor or potential partner POV, this preclinical study should be evaluated in the totality of the platform, especially in conjunction with previously released Phase II breast cancer results. I'm not a trading expert, but this rally doesn't appear to have the finger prints of day traders or algos, both of which have been conspicuously on the sidelines for awhile now.
All imo.
If we finish near the HOD on mice news, this would be a clear indication to me that we were and continue to be seriously undervalued(I certainly believe this).
Probably #1: a partnership. Then "To the moon!"
#7 is intriguing only in that one has to wonder why they persist after being roundly discredited at the trial court with no real hope of winning anything on appeal. Basic game theory could suggest that they hope to throw a "wrench in the machine" by inducing delays...and that they have reason to know precisely what that "machine" is.
All imo.
Catalysts?TIME forANOTHER POTENTIAL NEWS LIST forNEWBIES UPDATE (back by popular demand)
I see what you are saying. I was thinking PPHM vs CSM. Suits for wrongful death are another area entirely.
does this mean that any possible wrongful death lawsuits will be allowed against CSM if they are found guilty... filed by families of those that passed that were part of the phase IIb NSCLC trial that CSM, if found guilty... would be still liable for?
the 2 year statue of limitations for North Dakota states the clock starts ticking "ONCE" fraud was proven, so that wouldn't be Sept 24, 2012.... it would be much later when Peregrine discovered all that they were not suppose to discover.
Maybe this case will be the one that wakes up the Big Pharma industry and all their cozy relationships.
I'd still be for nationwide full page newspaper coverage.... many families that may have lost a loved one wouldn't even dare believe that Big Pharma works this way.
SOL is from filing. The case was filed on 9/24/12.
hopefully this decision by the Judge is not going to allow CSM to try and allow the statute of limitations to pass... if so, I wonder if full page newspaper coverage nationwide will get their attention
Good question. I wonder what amount of insurance they carry. Also, could the carrier try to dodge based on fraudulent or illegal conduct?
The decision should be taken as a
major victory for PPHM.
Now the question is will the E&O Carrier for CSM
try to dodge exposure with denying coverage for uncapped exposures.
Decision posted on the CSM MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Validity and Enforceability of Limitation of Liability Clauses in Master Services Agreement.
I pasted the conclusion below. The decision is 44 pages and can be found on Pacer. There is apparently no charge for viewing opinions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART
and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion for partial
summary judgment. The Court holds that the Limitations
on Damages clauses in Paragraph 16 of the Master
Services Agreement apply to the FAC’s causes of action
for breach of contract, passive negligence, and
negligence per se. The damages limitations do not
apply to the claims in the FAC for active negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud.
They keep dropping the bid. Someone must have a big order in at ShareBuilder.
It looks like they are requesting a transcript of the hearing since the court reporter is referenced. Good question as to why. There is no decision on the Motion For Summary Judgement posted yet. Pure conjecture, but maybe the judge ruled against them and is still drafting his opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't a transcript be ordered in conjunction with an appeal? Can they even appeal a Motion For Summary Judgment that is partial in nature (validity of alleged limited liability clause) and simply not granted, i.e, not a final order? Could they make a Motion For Reconsideration? Maybe the lawyers on the board can comment.
Still no decision on CSM motion. This was filed yesterday. Unless I misunderstand (not unusual) I don't understand why defendant's attorney would be asking the court for a transcript of their own filing.
Also, before the dose switching was discovered, there was potentially a much quicker path to market.
Per Joesph Shan...
Had the study, which was initially reported as demonstrating statistically meaningful overall survival benefits, been confirmed, Peregrine could potentially have sought early approval and sales of the product. This likely would have shaved at least 3 to 4 years from the program and resulted in early commercial sales. While a confirmatory Phase III trial would still need to be done, the FDA,s practices and guidances indicate that it would have required only 300-400 patients in our ensuing Phase III study based on the hazard ratio determined in the Phase II study.
The dose switching made AbbVie go on hold, as PPHM PR'ed (without naming names because we know the name from the filings) and when PPHM's investigation was over they had the new info on Bavituximab that made them realise they had something way more powerful then they thought they had.
It was continued by the court's own motion to 7/28 @ 9:00 a.m. There is no indication whether there was oral argument, or if the hearing is still going on, or if the judge is still drafting his ruling. If CSM's motion for a cap on their liability is denied, they will be on the hook for a very large sum of money..at least eight figures in my layperson's opinion.
Any info on CSM lawsuit? I remember seeing it postponed to July 28, initially it should have been July 21, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. But I cannot find the post about July 28.
Someone already has taken legal action against the company, BOD and management. The case was dismissed. Although their case was thoroughly discredited at the trial court level, they have appealed. Given that the plaintiffs have demonstrated through trial documents that they have inside knowledge of the company's efforts to secure a partner, it is not a stretch, imo, to consider that the plaintiffs - with no serious hope of a victory at the appellate level - think they can strong arm a settlement by creating a "potential" liability that impedes partnership and finance options, or they hope that such machinations will help keep a temporary lid on the share price.
if Peregrine BOD and management was as bad as some suggest, wouldn't it be prudent to take legal action against the BOD and management? Or, is it easier to take advantage of a company's focus on science to manipulate the stock?
Is there anything that Sockpuppet writes that isn't kind of a reach? Sockpuppet performs a function...journalism it is not.
All imo.
Kind of a reach by AF on this one.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Avid revenue. I believe billings were lagging last quarter due to production scheduling, which kept revenue on the light side. Those billings would have been pushed into this quarter. We could see a bump if this quarter's billings are on target. Of course, PPHM doesn't trade on earnings, but it may be one less bashing opportunity. All imo.
Earnings Whispers says, although not always 100% right, that it's the 14th ah, confirmed. Who really knows tho.
But preferred shares are still trading at a discount. Odd.
Don't like the share price manipulation game, but do like the volume so far today. Heck even the preferred shares are up a bit today. Let's see what today brings, I expect a quiet week, but next week should be interesting. Will we get the run up to the quarterly call?