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.
Do you realize that they have got free shares while we used our hard earned cash to buy our shares? Don’t you see the difference?
impossible to assess without knowing the numbers that Berlin is looking at.
———————-
Would you not be scared to look at the same numbers?
The management bought quite a few shares 2.5 months ago between 1.80 to 1.90. Did it do anything? No, not really. Why would it be different this time?
For well-managed companies, the insider buys mean a lot. Advaxis is not a well managed company, and there has not been a trust established between the management teams and the shareholders with the exception of shady gamers who fleeced this company.
As for the management weighing in and explaining the reasons for re-filing F-3, that's not their style. I personally don't need to hear their words, I need to see their execution. That would speak much louder than any word uttered by Ken Berlin.
Now volume kicked in, huge 230K block got sold. Something is likely coming after the close. Another secondary? At 20% discount? Warrants attached?
Does not smell right...
Would not they need a pre-clinical data set for a specific PD-1/PDL-1?
This is just a thought.
Could it be possible that someone (company, fund, etc) is trying to circumvent Dr Yvonne Patterson patents on LM that she licensed to Advaxis some time ago? Since her patents cover area what we call AXAL in general, the company has been getting patents issued just to Advaxis that cover new technology forming a ground for NEO and, especially, HOT. Have there been any words of war between YP and ADXS in regards of slow progress or something else? Maybe, Yvonne has been unhappy with her decision to license Lm-tech to Advaxis? Maybe, something has changed recently? Something that we do not know. If so, this would explain why Advaxis is steering away from "old" Lm-tech.
I know this is provocative, but life is not simple. Especially when it concerns a groundbreaking science and sharing the results of its fruits.
like Hov said this will end up evening out and we will rise later in the day.
Where and when did he say that? He has not posted here for a while now.
GB:
A classic bankruptcy cannot be ruled out, albeit I believe we still have a chance to avoid it. However, a bankruptcy a-la NBWO style looks more and more likely. The vicious cycle of endless raise-collapse-reversesplit-raise has been started some time ago. Can Ken stop this cycle and find a way to get out of this spiral leading to a darkness of a black hole? I do not know, but neither does he.
I see this refiling of an old F-3 as a sign of imminent raise. The only questions are when, how many shares, and at what price? How many killer warrants are going to be issued?
Keeping a quarter billion dollars on the shelf is just beyond ridiculous at these market cap levels. Did they not even bother to "refresh" that older number? I would not be surprised.
I'm not putting blames entirely on Ken. No. He does not have many options left to play with. He is literally between a rock and a hard place. Hope he learned a thing or two from his previous fiasco. Sure hope so.
Let’s hear your analytical skills.
Analytical skills from a person who barely qualified for a GED? LOL!
Anyway, as I posted this morning, the shelf renewal might have been something to do with the company's market cap breaching a $75M threshold which is a requirement from SEC.
In the past 3 years or so, the BOD had no issues to get a right amount of votes to pass anything they desired: new and improved types of compensation, desired BOD structure, new shares, and etc. Why do you think they face any issues to push through new batch of shares? There'll be a revolt only on this message board. Remember, the tutes have already left the building. Whoever holds tens of millions of new shares will cast votes exactly as needed -- in their best interest which turns out to be new warrants attached to the newly issued shares. This is something new to ADXS. When the companies go that route they get into beds with the most vicious predators who show no mercy. I've seen too many times how that combo of stocks and warrants work. The retail will be slaughtered.
I personally expect a new secondary either today after the close or next week before the Labor Day.
the old shelf should've been valid until Feb 2019 (two years from the effectiveness date)
Dew,
The SEC says the shelf registration is valid for 3 years, not two. The old and new F-3s do not explicitly state their expiration dates, however, there are some exceptions when the F-3 must be renewed but they seem not relevant to the company.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/415a5guidance6.htm
What I found is this (see Page 7):
http://media.mofo.com/files/uploads/Images/FAQShelfOfferings.pdf
It looks like the renewal has something to do with ADXS market cap falling below $75M threshold.
What are the eligibility requirements for secondaryonly
shelf registration statements?
If the issuer’s public float is below $75 million, the
issuer still may use Form S-3 or Form F-3 to register
secondary offerings if it meets the other eligibility
requirements of the Form. Secondary offerings are not
subject to the one-third cap. (See “What is ‘primarily
eligible’?” for an explanation of the one-third cap.)
However, in some instances, registration of a secondary
offering may involve a significantly large percentage of
the issuer’s outstanding capital stock, causing the SEC
to deem the offering a “disguised primary offering.”
See “What is a ‘disguised primary offering’?”
Where is O’Reilly? Where is Zhang?
Did they also get fired?
Nah, it’s spherical aberration due to rose colored glasses. It shifts decimal point to the right.
Does anyone doubt we are heading sub $1 in a short while?
Where are those folks who crowned Ken 1st as the rightest CEO ever since 08/22/2018?
To da Moon!
What the hell? We just missed it! Missed the freaking half lit Moon! Passing by and heading towards Planet Mercury. What a toxic substance to end up. No fuel, no way to make a return. We are doomed.
How about a $5.267B deal with $249.95M upfront?
It looks like we are royally screwed now. Shelf registration for $250M. Geezus...
ADXS has the right leadership now
What's your definition of the right leadership?
Let's close the deal........
I have a gut feeling that the next deal will involve one of the HOT indications, not AXAL. The latter will be shelved and rendered obsolete.
I just hope they won't sell out HOT like DOC did with NEO.
I have a feeling this is not going to go like ARIA did for me
Which part? When it went from mid 20s to 2s, or when the buyout happened? I hope you meant the latter? We have already experienced Part 1 of the Horror movie.
if your theory is correct, we will not see much of the buyout or takeout premium at all. In the end, the major beneficiary will already have votes in their pocket, and voila, the company gone. All we could do is the class action law suits. But, good luck with those.
At attempt to take it private?
Wow, a never ending saga to pin a blame on the share price under-performance. It's been HFTs, algos, short sellers, Adage, message board fudsters, RSUs, and etc. Now, IB is the nemesis du jour. Brilliant! Who's next?
It's amazing to observe how the blame is deflected from the past and current management teams. Why?
Is it that hard to see that it all rests on the management, or how the company has been mismanaged? Short sellers are like all vicious predators -- they choose the weakest as a prey and hunt to kill. Yes, they operate in packs, and don't adhere to rules, and show no mercy. They smell the blood, and they go berserk. Advaxis is a wounded animal, and an easy target. The sharks are circling around and could I say, salivating?
IB is the brokerage firm that allows for a naked shorting. They do not short themselves, but allow predators to use their platform to kill weak and sick prays. Yes, they got a slap on their fists, and of course, they'll continue to allow for a shorting as the trading fees are their cash source. Nothing will change dramatically.
This company needs to execute -- plain and simple. Then, all vermins are going to have to find an easier pray somewhere else. Until then, we will be attacked and be close to death than prosperity.
The markets have already voted -- they now are almost completely discounting the AXAL program. Should anything occur, such as an AXAL deal/partnership soon enough, that would be a huge upside surprise and the share price would be repriced well above $2.00. But again, there is a big IF.
Yeah, but quite a few prominent posters here proclaimed that Ken was trying to strong arm the big pharma forcing them to sign a deal now or else. What a bunch of crap. It never dawns on these folks that you can't really push on the rope, it's Mechanics 101 for those who were luckier (?) than I to attend the college.
Maybe, Ken does not really understand how negotiations work, especially in the biotech space? As far as I know, Ken has never been involved in these types of negotiations. Learning from his own mistakes? Well, that would be too expensive for us.
You might be right to interpret the #s that way. Math is not my strong suit, and I need to get my second GED in elementary algebra. Heading to work, and will grab the slide rule for my further number crunching.
@wmtgreeter
Institutional ownership summary:
as of 08/15/2017: 49.09%
as of 08/15/2018: 21.64%
Reduction by whopping 27.45%!
Per Q2/18:
Increased Positions 25 1,734,835
Decreased Positions 48 7,648,320
Difference : -5,913,485 shares!
This is not a Titanic?
It's farcical to hear perpetual stories blaming the terrible share price under-performance on shorts, algos, HFTs, message board FUDsters, warrants, clinical holds, FDA, EMA, and etc, and etc from this message board permanents. Not an iota about perennial mismanagement of the company, a revolving door in the upper level as well as on a lower level, broken promises, missed deadlines, quietly shelved programs and collaborations, a threat to go from a Ph3 company to a Ph1 company. Are they a management, or working for them? Inquiring minds want to know...
to burn the warrants is quite plausible
Plausible but hardly probable.
How much money would someone get is the warrants are entirely burned? Maximum $15M assuming all warrants cost $5. In reality, it's much, much less. The shorts made tons of money by shorting from 20s. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of them are gone now laughing at us, the bagholders.
What makes more sense is that some entity would want to prevent Advaxis from getting that extra cash from exercising the warrants. Even that is unlikely scenario.
I think the SP suppression is just a lack of buying interest. Nothing more. The "warrants" theory is going to end up a fake news at some point as it's not the driving force for this company. Lack of execution from the management is the real issue.
Ken's been a CEO for 4 months now, and it's time for him to show what he's got. The silence is deafening. Tony has left very little or next to nothing for him to work with to close a deal. What a disaster Tony was!
Time for Ken to execute and produce something tangible within 3 weeks. Otherwise, he'll be labeled as a CEO who bankrupted two companies in a year.
There seem to be some discrepancy between fintel and whalewisdom, but they are close. Main conclusion is the large funds are bailing. Need to change the trajectory.
There will be a crescendo of this type of rhetoric as we approach Ken's Waterloo moment. If bad expectations for the next conference call materialize, then shit throwing will spike showing a singular pattern. To the infinity we go!
@wmtgreeter
Ranya is now a new Noelle albeit with a title of VP, Business Development. I'd guess it's not the same as the web development.
Ranya Dajani has been signing off all the press releases since April now. A clever consolidation of the job duties, LOL!
Number 10 on the list is MILLENNIUM MANAGEMENT LLC with 323,615 shares.
#14 is under 200K shares.
It's not funny to see that Advaxis still has this EMA submission reference as a major news right on their home page. This is almost three months after they pulled a plug on that application and updated their site with a new corporate presentation in July. Pathetic...
Advaxis submits Conditional Marketing Authorization Application for axalimogene filolisbac for the second-line treatment of Metastatic Cervical Cancer In European Union
It's important to get things right.
I think Sidrunksky who is not of Polish origin must be reminded of the importance to get things right, don't you?
Thanks, Hovacre.
Was searching for ADXS-PSA+Pembro data to compare with the pembro monotherapy as there has been a controversy about the lack of data for pembro alone (see James Salmon's post re: some newspaper article last Friday).
CT site shows 18 trials, most of them are either inactive, not recruiting. Some are active and recruiting. The site shows that Merck is about to start a CT for pembro:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03506997?term=pembrolizumab&cond=Prostate+Cancer&draw=1&rank=1
The closest they have is the data from KEYNOTE-199:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02787005?term=pembrolizumab&cond=Prostate+Cancer&draw=1&rank=6
They presented the data as ASCO '18
http://abstracts.asco.org/214/AbstView_214_224563.html
Snip:
KEYNOTE-199: Pembrolizumab (pembro) for docetaxel-refractory metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Sub-category:
Advanced Disease
Category:
Genitourinary (Prostate) Cancer
Meeting:
2018 ASCO Annual Meeting
Abstract No:
5007
Citation:
J Clin Oncol 36, 2018 (suppl; abstr 5007)
Author(s): Johann S. De Bono, Jeffrey CH Goh, Kristiina Ojamaa, Jose Maria Piulats Rodriguez, Charles G. Drake, Christopher J. Hoimes, Haiyan Wu, Christian Heinrich Poehlein, Emmanuel S. Antonarakis; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia; East Tallinn Central Hospital, Tallinn, Estonia; Instituto Catalan de Oncologia, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH; MSD China, Beijing, China; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ; Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD
Abstract Disclosures
Abstract:
Background: Efficacy of PD-1 inhibition has not been demonstrated in large-scale mCRPC trials. Pembro showed preliminary antitumor activity in PD-L1+ mCRPC in KEYNOTE-028 (n = 23). Here, we present results from cohorts 1-3 (n = 258) of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-199 study of pembro monotherapy in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC (NCT02787005). Methods: Cohorts 1 (C1) and 2 (C2) enrolled patients (pts) with RECIST-measurable PD-L1+ and PD-L1– disease, respectively. C3 enrolled pts with nonmeasurable, bone-predominant disease. All pts had ECOG PS 0-2 and received ≥1 novel endocrine therapy (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide) and 1-2 prior chemotherapies including docetaxel. Pts received pembro 200 mg Q3W until PD or intolerable toxicity. Response was assessed Q9W in yr 1, then Q12W. Primary end point was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by central review in C1 and C2, separately and combined. Key secondary end points included DCR (CR + PR + SD) per PCWG3-modifed RECIST and safety in all 3 cohorts. Results: 131 pts enrolled in C1, 67 in C2, and 60 in C3. Median follow-up as of Oct 13, 2017, was 8.1 mo, 7.9 mo, and 11.8 mo, respectively. Antitumor activity was observed in all cohorts (Table). Across cohorts, DCR lasting ≥6 mo was 11%. In C1 and C2, 9% of pts had a ≥30% decrease in target lesions; 48% had target lesion changes between –30% and +20%. The response rate was numerically higher in pts with somatic BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations (12%). Drug-related grade 3-5 AE rates were 13% in C1, 12% in C2, and 17% in C3. Conclusions: Pembro shows antitumor activity and disease control with acceptable safety in pts with docetaxel-refractory mCRPC, regardless of PD-L1 status, in both RECIST-measurable and nonmeasurable disease. These data support further evaluation of pembro in mCRPC, including in pts wth homologous recombination defects. Clinical trial information: NCT02787005
C1 C2 C3 C1+C2 C1+C2+C3
RECIST v1.1
ORR, % (95% CI 5 (2-11) 3 ( < 1-10) NA 5 (2-8) NA
DCR, % (95% CI) 22 (15-30) 24 (14-36) 37 (25-50) 23 (17-29) 26 (21-32)
DCR ≥6 mo, % (95% CI) 9 (5-16) 6 (2-15) 22 (12-34) 8 (5-13) 11 (8-16)
PCWG3-modified RECIST
ORR, % (95% CI) 5 (2-11) 3 ( < 1-10) NA 5 (2-8) NA
DCR, % (95% CI) 27 (20-36) 42 (30-54) 57 (43-69) 32 (26-39) 38 (32-44)
DCR ≥6 mo, % (95% CI) 11 (6-17) 9 (3-18) 30 (19-43) 10 (6-15) 15 (11-20)
FROM KEYNOTE-46 (ADXS-PSA):
https://ir.advaxis.com/press-release/data-highlighting-advaxis-adxs-psa-presented-asco-annual-meeting
Key Findings from KEYNOTE-046 (as of March 30, 2018):
The advanced patient population in the study had a median Gleason score of 8.3, and was heavily pretreated, with greater than 70% having received three or more prior lines of therapy.
Median overall survival had not been reached in the combination arm after 13 months of follow-up (95%CI 7.16-NR), and was 7.79 months (95%CI 3.52-11.9) in the monotherapy arm.
56.8% of patients on combination therapy and 38.5% of patients on monotherapy did not experience disease progression.
The percentage of patients with PSA declines from baseline in the combination therapy arm was 40.5%, and 15.4% in the monotherapy arm.
In all treated patients, an improvement in survival was observed in patients with PSA declines from baseline of 50% or greater vs. those with PSA declines of less than 50%. There were 7 patients in the combination arm with 50% or greater declines in PSA from baseline, and none in the monotherapy arm.
------------------------------
I'm not sure if these data can be compared directly, but this is the closest we have to compare so far:
Keynote-199: DCR (CR + PR + SD) for RECIST v1.1: 26% (C1+C2+C3)
Keynote-199: DCR=> for RECIST v1.1: 11% (C1+C2+C3)
Keynote-199: DCR for PCWG3-modified RECIST: 38% (C1+C2+C3)
Keynote-199: DCR=>6 mo for PCWG3-modified RECIST: 15% (C1+C2+C3)
Keynote-046: DCR 56.8% combination therapy (ADXS-PSA+Pembro)
Keynote-046: DCR 38.5% monotherapy (ADXS-PSA)
My conclusion: Even ADXS-PSA is more effective for prostate cancer than pembrolizumab as a monotherapy.
Now, start throwing stones at me...
There would not have been a Justice effect without Pearson article. The rebuttal had much, much stronger influence on the retail investors sitting on the fences due to an initial SA article conceived by the same mind trust who orchestrated this bull trap of epic proportions. There wouldn’t be so many Justice followers without that “attack”. We’ve been played. Don’t you see that?
“Preclinical is factually incorrect.”
———————-
Although the white paper was referring to neoantigen programs only leaving other programs out of considerations, they were not thorough enough to miss on the ADXS-NEO program which has been in the clinics for few months now.