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.
If, one week from now, our course change hasn't been effected, that will lead us into a holiday-shortened week to follow. But, when trading resumes on Tuesday, May 30th, those of us with accounts at TDAmeritrade, will see those accounts transferred to Schwab on that day.
I could hopefully manage some "controlled chaos," but the two words could also prove to be mutually exclusive, especially for someone like me that doesn't do well with change. LOL, I'll survive.
This management team has handled this situation before, and they will do it again.
Hi, eb!
The veracity of the Ihub numbers, in this instance, will be revealed one way or the other. I pretty much always see the OS and MC numbers updated on Ihub, well before I see TDAmeritrade data updated. But, I am surprised that this time, it seems earlier than previous updates. If I had known it was going to take this long, I would have waited longer to comment.
However, while I have been confident in the reported OS number Ihub provides, it wasn't until I was studying the float number last night, that I determined that it will also be proven accurate (with the exception of 5,708 shares, which I think was an oversight, possibly, in removing the restriction on those shares).
I have been talking about restricted Cede shares held in nominee accounts by insiders for the beneficial ownership of the actual owner ever since I saw this share structure design announced several years ago. The pending business combination will show just why this design was implemented. I'm excited about it, and I am confident in the updated float and OS numbers Ihub indicates.
People don't realize the significance of the float number. They will, when the shares get split and force a short squeeze.
I question the restriction status of ~5,708 shares.
119,080,135 x 1.9245 = 229,169,720 shares.
The updated float reflected by Ihub is 229,164,012.
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NASDAQ/humanigen-HGEN/financials
If we forward split at 5:1, I think those shorts that are naked are going to have to buy 5 shares for every one share that they are short. And it appears that we already have >90% more shares in the market than the company has issued. "Zero price rise?" I think you might need a telescope to see how high share price gets.
Take this FWIW. I haven't seen any literature dealing with the effect of a stock split on naked shorts. So this is just me sharing my thoughts on the subject.
So you think I am wrong about the ACTIV-5 trial focusing on late stage patients? I hope I am right about a forward split. There's been too much cost, and no benefit, associated with this investment for way too long. I want to restore my life to some semblance of normalcy.
Not necessarily.
Why do you think our float increased from 102M, up to 229M? I think it's because the restrictions have been lifted from those Cede shares coming out of the nominee accounts that were controlled by insiders, and are about to be issued to our business partner.
If your 12 week countdown is regarding the amount of time we have to continue funding operations, we're halfway through Q2, so that time could be more like 6 weeks. That's why I said that I am not "patiently optimistic."
As far as the Class Action litigation, there is no basis in fact for even filing the motion. It can't simply be based on what a shareholder believes to be accurate (or inaccurate). And I agree that corporate counsel may have advised management to refrain from public discourse on the relevant matters. It's too bad that investor sentiment has to be sacrificed, though, especially when it negatively impacts share price, and even more so when share price is key to our Nasdaq compliance and business combination. Legal strategies should not be lethal strategies for the company's survival.
If my thesis proves inaccurate, and we just go ahead with a dilutive increase in our OS, it's going to be difficult, very difficult, for me to see why that option was taken. The reason for it may be plain as day, but I don't see it yet.
"Tuesday, May 16, 2023
NIH-funded study highlights the financial toll of health disparities in the United States
Ground-breaking study provides national and state-level estimates of the economic burden of health disparities by race and ethnicity and educational levels."
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-study-highlights-financial-toll-health-disparities-united-states
Give me a break!
From my perspective, if the NIH wants to reduce "health disparities by race," why not eliminate the role NIH plays in promulgating that disparity?
How is it that the NIH can't find statistical significance in the efficacy of lenz in the ACTIV-5 trial, but the company reported over an 8-fold improvement in the treatment outcomes for Black and African-American patients in the LIVE-AIR trial?
Shameful and disgraceful to claim a goal of wanting to eliminate racial disparity in health outcomes, AND THEN TO NEGLIGENTLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM.
I actually started off this day with the intention of following-up on your comment about lenz making remdesivir perform better. I've had about 6 windows open all day in regards to this.
But, lenz really DOES make remdesivir perform better. Just as the patent we have for lenz making yescarta and tecartus better (going by memory). Here are the patents.
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/humanigen-inc?page=2
Also, in a meta-analysis of remdesivir, the consensus was that remdesivir reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation or death by 3% in covid patients, compared to patients in our targeted population who demonstrated a 62% risk reduction.
slide 3
https://wsw.com/webcast/lytham5/hgen/2015304
Yet, our Hazard Ratio improved from about 3.0, to 3.4 when remdesivir was added.
No, I haven't. You have to be kick-ass smart to come up with something Iike this, and I've said before that I respect Dale's financial acumen.
"The forward split would drop our share price from $0.17 to $0.034."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171881132
"Why have I started to think my shares are going to be worth $0.034, and that I won't be unhappy about that?"
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171867390
Of course, it's equally plausible that the company is going to simply increase the OS and the AS, and dilute shareholders.
I'm keying-in on the sole bit of data we have for consideration, a precise OS of 595,400,675 shares.
Our current OS is about 119.08M shares. I think we have an open shelf registration to permit the sell of about $81.6M worth of stock (possibly about 480M shares). That would give us an OS of about 599,100,000. So, close to 595,400, 675 shares.
But, 595.400,675 shares / 5 = 119.080,135. That precise calculation leads me to conclude that we will forward split at 5:1, and also avoid dilution. The OS would go up 5X, but so would the number of shares in our accounts.
And I don't think insiders who were the nominee holders of shares are giving up anything. They weren't the beneficial owners to begin with, if I'm right. A well-designed defensive share structure from the beginning.
A single data point to draw upon to make a conclusion is far too scant for me to be comfortable with. But I'm confident that I have reason enough to form an opinion, and that is the standard I have had for most of my stated opinions.
I haven't seen the AS raised yet, dlog. Are you sure that's been done yet?
Interesting thing about our float increasing from about 102M shares, up to 229M shares. I think that signifies that restrictions have been lifted on shares about to be transferred to our business partner (those shares that were shown as "sold" by insiders, but which I suspected were just transferred from the nominees back to the beneficial owner). This observation supports that conclusion.
I think even our own data showed a CRP Hazard Ratio at an outstanding 3.0 without remdesivir, and a 3.4 Hazard Ratio with it.
I agree that the important thing now is our pathway out of the situation we are in. I am thrilled at what I believe is the prospect of a forward split. We just need to increase our Authorized Shares to at least 600M shares, but that would leave very little headroom, and 1B might be a more responsible total. Maybe we're waiting on the DE Sec of State for that.
I think we still have an open shelf registration to allow for the sell of $81.6M worth of stock, also. I don't know how that may come into play.
And seeing the SEC use discretionary authority in dealing with charges against our most important financial backer in the past, it's worth noting. We could really use his continued financial support now.
John Durham's report is to be released at 4pm E.
I look forward to it, finally. For me, at issue is the abuse of discretionary authority vested in unelected government bureaucrats.
Rather than the SEC returning recovered funds to injured investors, as they are chartered to do, they took our money and transferred it to the US Treasury.
John Durham's report is to be released at 4pm E.
I look forward to it, finally. For me, at issue is the abuse of discretionary authority vested in unelected government bureaucrats. That is at issue here, as well. on two fronts, the Murchinson disgorgement decision, and the FDA's Decline of our LIVE-AIR EUA.
Your perception does not accurately reflect the unfolding details of events. For example, our share count will not be increased to 238M.
I was disappointed that the 10-Q was released as a historical stand-alone filing, with no Press Releases accompanying it.
But, I can understand that this will also mean that our imminent Press Release(s) will now be entirely onward-looking, so I continue to be optimistic...but not patiently optimistic. Luckily, I don't expect to have to be patient. I am now looking for Press Releases everyday, including today, until I see those Press Releases published.
A full vote of the shareholders may be forth-coming, but it may not be required. Corporate actions can be initiated by a majority vote.
I didn't either, eb, although I have not read further than pg 18. It reminded me of my mother giving me castor oil as a kid. Anymore, reading filings is just not something I look forward to.
I've got to find a post I wrote two or three months ago, in which I seem to recall saying that Q1 was going to be too early to reflect some of the positive developments that may be in process. And then I need to look at what I said subsequently.
I'm really surprised that the company hasn't issued a press release or any additional filings associated with that. In my opinion, the footsteps are in the sand already, indicating our direction. They lead right up to the beach house, but the door is closed.
I don't think any "out" they might offer Hempton would be easy, it would probably just be easier than to cover in the open market. But I would like to see Hempton offered some restricted shares should he want to reverse his position.
Thanks, Steve. My wife was hospitalized in Feb 2020, supposedly the month before covid arrived. She stayed in different medical facilities (hospital, LTAC's, nursing center) until she died in Oct 2020. I was following the various studies of lenz the whole time, and I just knew it could help with the continuing indications she presented.
I can only imagine how these losses must affect Durrant and Dale, who have been seeing these preventable deaths occur. It's worth any amount of my time to support them (for free).
I walked into my late wife's nursing center one day, and one of the nurses I passed said, "She's waiting on you." Just after that, another nurse said, "She knew you would be here."
And sure enough, I walked into my wife's room, and she was sitting on the side of her bed with her coat on (I always took her out to the courtyard), and I was greeted by a friendly "Hi, Babe" when she saw me. It was my favorite visual of her that whole year. She knew that I would do my best to be there for her.
Lenz may have saved her.
All I can do now is to honor her trust in me by doing all I can to see that lenz will be there for the patients that will need it.
Joining Stocktwits poster 'flowerchefstocks' with posts that deserve consideration are the two most recent posters, at the time of this writing, 'ChartMill,' and 'metz57.'
The value I derive from flowerchefstocks' post is in illustrating the systemic nature of Regulatory interference that I claim has been directed at us by the design of the ACTIV-5 trial. ACTIV-5 was designed to protect Big Pharma profits by keeping lenz off the market, and crushing small-cap Humanigen in the process. TX AG Paxton should be provided the list of small-cap biotech companies, in which Humanigen is included, whose value has been destroyed by Regulators, when these small companies attempt to bring covid treatments into the market.
'ChartMill's,' most recent post states there is a "Squeeze play pattern detected by our stock screener for $HGEN." I'm noting the headline only, as I didn't delve into the details. For me, there was no reason to do so. I've already noted, "...a piece of the puzzle that Dale likely placed on the table, that could be mega-significant." I see a squeeze play, too.
Finally, 'metz57' provides some commentary about the improvement noted in secondary endpoints of the ACTIV-5 trial. That's all I was looking for from the results of this trial. I have no hope that ACTIV-5 will be proven successful after peer-review, and I think it would be a waste of resources to continue to treat late-stage covid patients with lenz. The improvement noted in the secondary endpoints needs to be included in the resubmission of our EUA application based on the successful LIVE-AIR trial.
https://stocktwits.com/symbol/HGEN
You may very well have been, and continue to be, smarter than me. I'm okay with that, a lot of people are.
But that doesn't mean that I can't have, and express, my own opinion.
If, however, management did not care about safeguarding shareholder value, they could have just increased the OS, and diluted us. We will not see a change in our Market Cap as a result of this suspected corporate action, and we will not be diluted by it.
I had said, "The shares then available for a Controlled Equity Offering would be the difference between 595.4M - 357.3M = 238.1M shares."
I think I should more appropriately rearrange that equation to read, "...595.4M - 238.1M = 357.3M shares..." That represents our projected OS total - our partner's equity stake = our stake.
I love pretty much everything in my version of Humaniworld, to include waking up to a 5-fold increase in my shares.
But that would change in an instant if my shares were provided to our partner company. Obviously.
I'm just saying that Humanigen has to currently own the shares that will be transferred to our partner. I suspect these shares will come from a Dale entity (and maybe previously held by Valiant), which would be the beneficial owner of these shares you have seen "sold" by insiders, but which I think were simply transferred from what were nominee accounts controlled by insiders, to the beneficial owner.
Stocktwits poster 'flowerchefstocks,' a retired microbiologist, shared a very informative article about the rough road small-cap biotechs have had in regards to getting a piece of the covid market. We're not alone.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-05-12/bidens-covid-over-proclamation-extinction-virus-or-lull-next-variant-0
Of course, I continue to have the very high regard for Dale that I always have. In fact, there's a piece of the puzzle that Dale likely placed on the table, that could be mega-significant. I've not said much about it, because it involves a baseline that I can determine, but for which there is no corroboration. In fact, it's a bit unsettling, because I can't draw a supportable conclusion from it. But if I didn't have a very high opinion of Dale, this puzzle piece could change that in a heartbeat. So, give him a minute.
The cards have to be played Monday.
Why would you think they might not do a deal?
I'm thinking that equity stake in the partner might satisfy our MVLS Nasdaq listing standard. It depends if, when added to our MLVS now, whatever it is, that maybe the combination will equate to $35M.
I'll take that. I think we'll come out with 60% ownership of Humanigen, in addition to have an equity stake in the partner.
I'm not familiar with the details of what you are saying, but I have in the past known short sellers to approach management (not talking about ours), and try to negotiate a buy of shares from them, without having to cover in the open market.
I'll make a deal with you, dlog. If things work out like I said they might, I'll try harder to make you understand what I have been saying for quite a long time now.
If things don't work out as I hope they will, that is, if we don't provide shares to our business partner, without diluting existing shareholders, I'll try harder to explain why I thought that it might be possible to do so.
I realize that I'm sitting pretty far out on limb, and I just hope I'm sawing on the right side of it.
In your last post, you mentioned the reality of 50% dilution for the business combination, and you did not explain why you saw that much dilution, and I said I didn't see any. Your question now is related to your last unanswered question.
I've already talked about how we could accommodate the supply of shares for our business partner. Just as I have tried to explain to Yooo the possible significance of the insider "sells" of shares owned indirectly.
It appears that I lack the ability to explain myself successfully regarding these subjects. And I don't think it is productive to continue to do that, which I seem unable to do.
It appears that management is going to wait until possibly Monday, which I think is the due date, to file their 1st quarter 10-Q, and to perhaps issue a Press Release, or two, which will hopefully answer your questions.
The Title 42 protection/restriction (depending on how you look at it) has ended.
So hopefully, what I had said earlier can no longer be somehow considered off-topic.
"There is another potentiality for AG Paxton and Governor Greg Abbott to be concerned about with the pending expiration of Title 42. I mentioned it earlier.
"Another Mysterious Balloon Is Being Tracked by U.S. Officials
The balloon was first spotted last week over Hawaii. U.S. Officials are now reportedly watching as it heads toward Mexico...
The U.S. military has reportedly been tracking the balloon since late last week and has deemed the object as no threat to air traffic or national security, and claims that the balloon isn’t emitting or receiving any signals. Sources told NBC News that the balloon is free-floating under its own power and is moving slowly toward Mexico."
https://gizmodo.com/spy-balloon-china-hawaii-flying-object-1850392558
The balloon doesn't have to traverse US airspace to spread a pathogen across America, when there are millions of foreign nationals in Mexico preparing to cross our southern border when Title 42 ends, at virtually the same time as the national pandemic emergency ends. The balloon could drop canisters of pathogens designed to open at a certain elevation, and then just continue on its merry way."
We've had reports from various universities around the world that they were able to weaponize the covid virus to yield as much as an 80% kill rate.
We've seen balloons used in our history to disseminate pathogens.
There is no known treatment option for a covid virus that is that virulent. Lenz is the best potential therapeutic solution should a lethal variant begin to circulate. Governments should stockpile lenz for the protection of their citizens, societies, and economies.
I didn't see where you were getting that. Now I do.
Have you compared that to the ownership reports I previously linked from the SEC?
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/own-disp?action=getissuer&CIK=0001293310&type=&dateb=&owner=include&start=80
I'm not sure that MarketBeat contradicts what I said about this earlier. If it does, show me.
Are you sure that you provided the link you intended to provide? It doesn't support what you said.
I don't know if you have followed my discussions about the design of our share structure, using Cede shares issued to insiders, through nominee accounts, and not for the beneficial use of the insiders, but that might factor into what I hope we will see soon.
I pointed out that the insider trading record I had earlier linked reflected what most people consider insider sells. But I pointed our that the insiders did not directly own the shares designated as sold. In fact, I don't think these shares were sold, at all. I think they were just transferred to the nominee. And if so, then it could be these shares that will be issued to our business partner.
Man, I hope that is true.