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.
I should have said, price per share.
How much do you guess the buyout will be for?
Buy reiterated at Lazard?
buy reiterated at Lazard
by: gr8opportunities 07/05/06 11:18 am
Msg: 113631 of 113636
if you subscribe to first call you will see the note from lazard with buy reiteration this morning at 10am. it says today's PR does not materically change the legal proceedings and that november is the trial timeframe. it also says settlement expected between both companies. you CANNOT post links, you have to log on and see the posted statement.
Some good news.
European Medicines Agency Validates Insmed's Regulatory Application For Marketing IPLEX(TM) in Europe
Wednesday July 5, 8:15 am ET
IPLEX(TM) Also Receives European Orphan Drug Designations
RICHMOND, Va., July 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Insmed Incorporated (Nasdaq: INSM - News): Insmed today announced the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has validated its application to market IPLEX(TM) (mecasermin rinfabate (rDNA origin) injection), in the European Union (EU). The validation was granted within the scope of the EU Commission designations of IPLEX as an orphan medicinal product for the Treatment of primary insulin-like growth factor-1 deficiency due to molecular or genetic defects (EU/3/06/378); and Treatment of patients with growth hormone (GH) gene deletion who have developed neutralizing antibodies to GH (EU/3/06/377).
ADVERTISEMENT
"We are pleased to have reached this important milestone in the European drug approval process and particularly at this time as it positions us ahead of schedule in our pursuit of EU approval," said Geoffrey Allan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Insmed. "This is just one more example of Insmed's ability and commitment to execute our development and commercialization plans."
The validation signifies that the EMEA can now begin review of Insmed's marketing authorization application. The review process is being coordinated by the EMEA under the centralized licensing procedure, which, if resulting in approval, provides one marketing authorization for all 25 member states of the EU, as well as Norway and Iceland. With the validation step complete, the application will be assessed on a timetable that could lead to an approval and marketing authorization in 2007. The orphan medicinal product status would assure Insmed Inc. a ten year period to market IPLEX in the EU.
Biotech reversal or dead cat bounce?
http://www.forbes.com/home/markets/2006/06/30/vertex-johnsonandjohnson-cephalon-cx_pk_0630roundupbio...
Bioteck stocks hold steady
http://www.forbes.com/home/markets/2006/06/23/neurocrine-sepracor-teva-cx_pk_0623roundupbiotech.html
opps! sorry for the re-post. Did not show when I loged on.
Insmed Endocrine Society 2006 Update; Insmed Will Report Efficacy of IPLEX(TM) in Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance; Company Also to Present Data on the Unique Pharmacokinetics of IPLEX
06/22/2006 08:04
Insmed, Inc (NASDAQ: INSM) today announced that investigators from the University of Cambridge, UK, will be presenting new results on the safety and efficacy of its insulin-like growth factor drug, IPLEX(TM) (mecasermin rinfabate (rDNA origin) injection), in patients with severe insulin resistance syndromes at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society in Boston, MA. This platform presentation will be given on Tuesday, June 27 at 11:30 a.m., Room 206 of the Boston Convention and Exhibit Center. The title of the talk is:
-- rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 Treatment of Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance Syndromes: Preliminary Data, Fiona Regan, Marc de Kerdanet, Mehul Dattani, Andreas Sommer, Kenneth M Attie, David B Dunger. (ENDO Abstract OR40-2)
Insmed also will be presenting additional data demonstrating the safety and efficacy of IPLEX on patients with severe IGF-I deficiency. In addition, two posters will highlight the attributes of IPLEX's pharmacokinetic profile. Studies to be presented include:
-- Once Daily rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 Treatment Improves Growth in Children with Severe Primary IGF-I Deficiency: Results of a Multicenter Clinical Trial (ENDO Abstract OR40-1, Tuesday, June 27, 11:15 a.m., room 206, Boston Convention and Exhibit Center)
-- Subcutaneous Administration of rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 in Healthy Adult Volunteers Does Not Result in Supraphysiological Concentrations of Free IGF-I (ENDO Abstract P1-192, Saturday June 24, 11 a.m., poster session, Boston Convention and Exhibit Center)
-- Pharmacokinetics of Single Dose Subcutaneous Administration of rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 in Healthy Adult Volunteers (ENDO Abstract P1-191, Saturday, June 24, 11 a.m., poster session, Boston Convention and Exhibit Center)
"We are extremely pleased to be presenting data at two poster and two podium presentations. We believe that IPLEX is a breakthrough drug that is showing very promising results in patients with severe insulin resistance. The preliminary data that will be presented at ENDO 2006 show that IPLEX may be beneficial for treating these patients, who are generally unresponsive to conventional therapies," remarked Kenneth M. Attie, M.D., Vice President, Medical Affairs, Insmed. "Additional data being presented supports the rationale for developing a unique dual protein therapeutic to closely mimic normal human physiology."
IPLEX is approved in the United States for the treatment of growth failure in children with severe primary IGF-I deficiency (Primary IGFD).
Thanks for the update.
Would that be a reverse split? To my knowledge, Mutual funds can not buy under $5.00.
Re: INSM Fundamentals Still There
by: supacharja 06/14/06 08:10 pm
Msg: 106754 of 106766
"More are likely then to beieve the negatives since the falling sp seems to justify their validity."
And then panic sets in forcing the hand of the weak retail holders. INSM will remain fairly quiet due to competitive/legal implications, which acts as a double-edge sword. PR is likely to be rather mute which in turn may lead to a continued oversold scenario for the pps. But for those patient enough and confident enough in the Company, this difficult environment offers the potential for significant near/intermediate/longer-term returns. Balls of steel are required, but the risk/reward tradeoff is and in hind-sight will prove to be very favorable. And at the end of the day, a worst case scenario for INSM with respect to the patent suit outcomes, which is not likely, will not prove fatal (I suggest everyone on this board read the recent briefs from both sides to garner an understanding of the issues at hand). And understanding legal precedents relatable to the outstanding cases would help assuage the fears of many here. But nonetheless, murky visibility is allowing the pros to take advantage of each and every INSM investor that throws in the towel without understanding the issues at play. How do I know...significant insty accumulation has been underway for months. Which means one thing...insty ownership goes up while retail ownership goes down as a % of the overall float. Once the 6/30/06 stats appear, this will become even more apparent than the 3/31/06 stats.
Welcome to micro-cap investing, where extreme market inefficiencies allow the pros to take advantage of the ignorant. It is what it is and it has always been that way. And everyone can learn to play their game by understanding the story from top to bottom. The more you play the game, the more you increase your odds of success. Good luck.
Tercica Signs International Distribution Agreements for Increlex
Wednesday June 14, 4:15 pm ET
Increlex to Be Sold in the Arab Gulf Countries and Taiwan
BRISBANE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 14, 2006--Tercica, Inc. (Nasdaq:TRCA - News) today announced that it has signed distribution agreements with Biologix FZ Co. and Giddi Pharma Co. to begin distributing Increlex(TM) (mecasermin (rDNA origin) injection) in 17 Middle East and North African countries, and Taiwan, respectively. The first commercial shipment of Increlex to Taiwan was made June 12, 2006.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tercica's Increlex is the only product that is FDA-approved in the United States for the long-term treatment of severe Primary IGFD. In December 2005, Tercica submitted a Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for approval to market Increlex in the European Union (EU) for the same indication.
"We are executing on our plan to expand access to Increlex by making it available globally to children whose growth failure is caused by severe Primary IGFD. These are children who cannot be expected to respond adequately to exogenous growth hormone treatment," said Chris Rivera, senior vice president of Commercial Operations at Tercica. "Approximately 60 severe Primary IGFD patients have already been identified by physicians in the Middle East, North Africa and Taiwan as candidates for Increlex therapy. We look forward to working with leading biopharmaceutical distributors in these regions where the FDA's approval of Increlex is expected to be recognized, and we are pleased to have an opportunity to provide these children with Increlex," said Rivera.
"We are also very excited to begin our relationship with Tercica, and to represent Increlex in the Middle East & North Africa," said Nabil Ghorayeb, Marketing & Sales director of Biologix. "We believe that there is truly an unmet medical need for children with severe Primary IGFD in the countries that we represent, and we look forward to bringing Increlex to them."
Louis Chiang, president of Giddi Pharma, Co. Ltd., said, "We are pleased about adding Increlex to our product portfolio and to be working with Tercica. Based on our current estimates, we believe there are many children in Taiwan who will benefit from Increlex."
About Biologix
Biologix is a leading distributor for a number of products from leading pharmaceutical and biotech companies including Biogen-Idec and Cephalon in 17 countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Biologix is focused on the sales and marketing of products in specific therapeutic areas such as endocrinology, neurology, oncology, dermatology and infectious diseases.
About Giddi Pharma Co
Privately held Giddi Pharma Co, Ltd., founded in 1995, is a leading specialty medication and orphan drug company in Taiwan focusing on the areas of endocrinology, hematology, nephrology, oncology and metabolic diseases. Giddi seeks to introduce innovative products by forming strategic alliances with global principles including Baxter, Biomarin, Genzyme, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis, and others, committing superior knowledge and experience, and offering premium customer care for its clients earning it the Rare Disease Medication Contribution Award from the Department of Health of Taiwan each of the last five years.
Ya baby!! Finally an upgrade!!!!!
insmed from Unterberg
by: drbio45 05/25/06 12:58 pm
Msg: 99673 of 99722
Insmed (INSM5,6,7,8,9 $1.63 intraday) Buy
First IPLEX Orders Shipped – Reiterate BUY Rating
· Insmed announced today that it has shipped its first shipment of IPLEX.
· The AWP for a 24kg patient on IPLEX therapy dosed at 1.5mg/kg will be $32,850 annually. This breaks down to the AWP per carton which includes 35 vials of 36mgs of drug to be $3,150.
· Insmed has priced IPLEX to a 10% premium to Increlex. The AWP for a 24kg patient on Increlex therapy is about $29,643 annually.
· Insmed continues to receive orders from both private as well as government payors with about 80% of orders coming from private payors.
· We believe this is an incremental positive for Insmed given that it has now fully transitioned to a commercial company. We look for more clarity on traction among patients and physicians as more orders are received.
· We will be hosting dinners with Insmed management on June 26 in Boston and on June 27 in New York.
· We reiterate our BUY rating with a $3 price target.
Andrew Fein
Everyone still holding tight?
After todays bloodletting? God this stock is a real ball buster!!
Someone looking at INSM down the road?
Forbes article
Pharmaceuticals
Biology Rising
Kerry A. Dolan, 05.12.06, 10:00 AM ET
Burlingame, Calif. - It's clear that big drug companies are hungry to fill their pipelines. So hungry that they will pay top dollar to fill them. On May 9, pharmaceutical giant Merck announced it would spend $480 million to acquire two biotechnology companies, GlycoFi and Abmaxis. A month earlier, Pfizer paid an estimated several hundred million dollars for biotech firm Rinat Neuroscience. Also in April, powerhouse biotech firm Amgen closed a $2.2 billion deal to buy a smaller outfit, Abgenix.
Acquisitions by large drug companies are nothing new, but this recent wave is a bit different. The acquisition targets share two traits: steep selling prices and a focus on protein-based drugs, called biologics. For the past century, the biggest drug firms have relied on chemistry to develop pills as medicines. But since the birth of biotechnology 30 years ago, biologics has come into its own. Biologics now account for half the products currently in Phase II and Phase III clinical trials.
"You've got the two biggest pill companies [Pfizer and Merck] getting big time into biologics," says Michael Ross, partner at venture capital firm SV Life Sciences, who funded both Rinat and GlycoFi. "Nobody can afford to say 'Oh, we're a pill company'."
Terry McGuire, managing partner at Polaris Venture Partners and GlycoFi's founding investor, believes there will be a whole host of biologic drugs unveiled in the future, partly as a result of the advances in genomics used to develop these drugs. Biologics like Amgen's (nasdaq: AMGN - news - people ) Enbrel--a protein drug for immune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis--have become blockbusters. Enbrel revenues were nearly $2.6 billion last year.
Which may explain why Merck (nyse: MRK - news - people ) is shelling out $400 million for GlycoFi of Lebanon, N.H. Rather than develop its own drugs, GlycoFi has come up with a process that can make better drugs more efficiently by controlling the sugar structure around proteins in drugs. Last December, Merck announced an equity investment in GlycoFi as well as a broad research collaboration (See " Pharma's Little Helper"). The $400 million acquisition price for the six-year-old company is among the largest announced deals for a privately held biotech firm.
Pfizer's (nyse: PFE - news - people ) acquisition of Rinat Neuroscience of South San Francisco, announced last month, takes the world's largest pharma company a step further into the world of biologics as well.
Rinat, a spinoff of Genentech (nyse: DNA - news - people ), had been in a bidding war to partner with one of nine interested pharmaceutical firms for a promising but very early stage drug candidate to treat Alzheimer's. Pfizer made them an offer they couldn't refuse.
In the past, big pharma have been somewhat tentative about paying cash outright to acquire a company with drugs that hadn't even entered humans for testing. But now, most of the drugs from smaller biotechs that are in Phase II clinical trials have already been licensed or partnered with bigger drug developers. "The shelves are picked over," says SV Life Sciences' Ross.
"As long as supply does not exceed demand--and I don't think it will for a while--you're going to see earlier deals done."
Independent Market Studies
by: chem24_2000 05/08/06 05:04 pm
Msg: 93085 of 93153
In plain English, when peds endo were asked about using iPlex vs Increlex without actually mentioning product name by third party research firm, the vast majority favored iPlex. This gives the company a lot of confidence that iPlex is going to outshawdow Increlex.
New markets
by: chem24_2000 05/08/06 05:23 pm
Msg: 93139 of 93143
Noonan's Syndrome, Myotonic Dystrophy, Insulin resistance. Market release in matter of weeks not months. This company is what most stock picker hope to find, a real good handicapper should look at the fact that the drug is already FDA approved, and just about to be marketed, and the company is severly undervalued. Good luck.
Rstor1 Do you have any knowledge on the sales projections?
Do you think the sales will be saficiant?
Thanks
rstor1
What do you think are the major risks faceing INSM now.
Thanks.
I guess it would be "news" to those who don't know.
Looking good INSM!
"""Treatment with IPLEX demonstrated statistically significant, dose dependent increases in Height Velocity with a favorable safety profile""".
NORD Honors Insmed for Role in Developing Treatments for Rare Diseases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRNewswire
09:31 a.m. 04/25/2006
Company Saluted for Research in Treating Children With Extreme Short Stature
RICHMOND, Va., April 25, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Insmed Incorporated (INSM) was honored by the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) last night at its annual Tribute Banquet for the development of IPLEX(TM) (mecasermin rinfabate (rDNA origin) injection) for the treatment of growth failure in children with severe primary IGF-1 deficiency (Primary IGFD) or with growth hormone (GH) gene deletion who have developed neutralizing antibodies to GH. IPLEX was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in December 2005 as an orphan drug.
"For many years we've recognized the need for treatment for Primary IGF-1 deficiency, but few companies were willing to commercially develop insulin- like growth factor until now. IPLEX(TM) is a significant medical advancement worthy of recognition and we thank Insmed for this important contribution," said Abbey S. Meyers, President of NORD.
"We applaud NORD's longstanding tradition of recognizing those that dedicate their life's work to finding treatments for rare diseases, and we are delighted to be included in this celebration," said Ronald D. Gunn, M.B.A., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Insmed. "IPLEX(TM) is the culmination of over 20 years of dedicated research and development, and represents a breakthrough in IGF-1 replacement therapy, with potential benefits in several additional rare diseases with unmet medical needs."
About IPLEX
IPLEX, a complex of rhIGF-1 and rhIGFBP-3, is the only once-daily IGF-1 replacement therapy and the only therapy that provides both IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 that is approved by the FDA to treat children with severe Primary IGFD. The drug, expected to launch during the second quarter of calendar year 2006, is also being studied for various other indications with unmet medical needs including extreme insulin resistance, myotonic muscular dystrophy and HIV Associated Adipose Redistribution Syndrome (HARS).
About the Condition
Severe Primary IGFD is a genetic condition in which patients do not generate sufficient quantities of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-1) and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), two key proteins involved in mediating the effects of growth hormone. Patients with severe Primary IGFD present with extreme short stature (height standard deviation score, SDS < -3) and an extremely poor prognosis for adult stature. Whereas prepubertal height SDS can range as low as -9, a blunted pubertal growth spurt is usually apparent, resulting in adult height that is typically 5-12 SD's below the normal population (adult height between 100 and 140 cm). The profound short stature in patients is often associated with severe psychosocial problems.
Thought of this after reading your post.....
http://www.retro.ms11.net/InvestorMind.gif
Re: Question for JSpoonless/Abharploonta
by: JSpoonless (38/M/Atlanta, GA) 04/19/06 09:50 pm
Msg: 87973 of 87973
This touches on several complex legal doctrines. In order to get a US patent, there must have been (1) conception of the idea and (2) reduction to practice (e.g., actually making a product). These two steps must take place prior to filing a patent. The filed patent application must also meet the (1) enablement and written description requirements of the patent law so that "one of ordinary skill in the art" can read the patent application, and undertand it enough to reproduce the ides (e.g., product). I'm not familiar with DNA's development of this technology. I'm also not a biotech type, but if DNA filed patent applications without meeting any one of the above requirements, for example, without reducing the concept/idea to practice, then the patent can be found to be invalid.
Others on this board have suggested that INSM has a good invalidity position based on "prior art" (prior publications known before the date of conception of DNA's patents). This is a better way to invalidate if possible. Just keep in mind, the US courts, in general, presume a patent is valid and that the examiner knew what she/he was doing when she/he allowed the case. IMO, a judge would rather find the scope of claim coverage narrow than to invalidate the claims, although I would prefer the judge to just interpret the claims and compare the claim scope to prior art (i.e., not make an effort to find the claims valid when there is close or invalidating art).
I'm rambling, but there are many complicated issues at work here. As I've said numerous times before, I hope INSM has a strong primary noninfringement position with a good secondary invalidity position. Makes me wonder about the Dow Pharma move recently announced. Is Dow's process better than DNA's? Is Dow's process so different from the patented method claims that Dow's technology does not infringe literally ior under the doctrine of equivalents? Has INSM been using Dow's process from the get-go? If not, did they switch to Dow's technology because they are confident that this process does not infringe? Regardless of the answers and the possibility that the move to Dow's process delays iPLEX product launch, I think the odds of a finding of patent infringement is less today due to the INSM/Dow Pharma collaboration.
Nuff said for now.
The Skinny on INSM, TRCA and DNA
by: esrdpatient
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 04/19/06 01:10 am
Msg: 87673 of 87732
Those who know the history of Genentech (DNA) know that it corporately decided to get rid of its research and findings on IGF-1 so that it could restrict its time, efforts and personnel to finding cancer cures.
In divesting itself of this unwanted molecule, it sold to TRCA a whole gunny-sack of know-how and anything that seemed to be germane to IGF-1. By this time IGF-1 was old 1970's technology and the patent to make IGF-1 had expired.
Whether Genentech sold TRCA a pig in a polk, only litigation will decide. Genentech will officially stand by TRCA on the basis that whatever it sold to TRCA was merchantable.
Genentech purportedly had a large old batch of IGF-1 which is rumored to have been sent out for a number of years for clinical trials by endocrinologists who were trying to help children. They recorded results sometimes in good scientific fashion and sometimes more anecdotally from reports by parents. Many of these were foreign children seen twice a year by an endocrinologist or an assistant.
TRCA summarized these results and submitted them to the FDA as the basis for an approval of the drug Increlex.
Prior to this, other companies had produced IGF-1 and had hopes of marketing it. One such company is part of Pfizer. Another company actually filed in Europe for drug approval of IGF-1 many years ago but abandoned the application.
Although we may never know all of the details, in my humble opinion companies probably got rid of their IGF-1 aspirations because of negative clinical results when using only IGF-1 in its naked form.
INSM, over a long number of years, developed its own techniques and a large number of patents, and eventually developed IPLEX by its own methods.
The technique of INSM in successfully manufacturing the binding protein and successfully pairing it with IGF-1, resulted in a patented application whereby quite unexpectedly the paired product could be administered in unexpectedly higher doses than IGF-1 alone and with fewer injections per day and with decidedly fewer major side effects.
The mere idea that IGF-1 could be combined with its binding protein was not patentable since the two proteins occur naturally one bound to the other so that the idea of combining them is self-evident.
INSM, however, was entitled to patent the use of the two together as a novel drug which unexpectedly could be given in larger doses than IGF-1 alone and could be administered only once daily with fewer major problems.
In other words, the unexpectedly beneficial nature of IPLEX could not have been self-evident before the discovery and invention and clinical success by Insmed and its assignees.
I
Post from yahoo about lawsuit
Re: eagleeye/rstor
by: eagleeyeinvestor 04/09/06 04:57 pm
Msg: 85113 of 85114
Thanks.
I am still looking into this suit. I noticed one poster said the suit was filed in the 9th circuit. IMO, that means INSM has an even higher probability of winning. They do not favor corporate interests. The one thing about the 9th circuit is that probably half of their decisions are overturned. I think the law is strongly on INSM's side, but if the 9th should happen to rule against them, I should buy on that alone because the 9th has a long history of getting overturned. In the case INSM wins, I would think that is one of the 50% of 9th circuit cases that will stand because of the time/length of any potential patent violation.
The poster who holds that an FDA decision is different than a legal one is right. But he more than likely either has an agenda or does not understand patent law and law in general. And I have seen these tautologies before on other mbs; it kind of makes me think the hedgies might be playing this. They put forth absolutely true statements and then draw an erroneous conclusion to try to lead people down the wrong path.
When a party allows their patent to be violated for a considerable period of time, the court will probably not penalize the violator AT ALL. This is true in patent law and almost all law (i.e. squatter's rights, adverse possession, etc.). The question is how long did INSM violate the patent? This is really - How long did it take INSM to get its drug approved, from preclinical work all the way to FDA decision day? This has to be more than 7-8 years. I think that is all it will take for INSM to win on summary judgment, because you can bet TRCA knew what INSM was doing for at least 3 or 4 years before they filed a suit.
Remember the 9th has a way of constructing things against rights holders. This bodes well for INSM in the immediate future. And regardless of the 9th, INSM should prevail. Any judge worth his salt will look at the TRCA suit and throw it out just by asking "Why did you wait so long, literally until the day of FDA approval?" Think of the harm to ISM that TRCA caused by allowing INSM to get even through Phase 2 trials. INSM has expended considerable time and money on its drug. IMO, this is the reasoning that any sensible court will apply to throw TRCA/DNA right out of the courtroom.
I may be buying this week just because of the disparity in what the market thinks and what I think to be a value regardless of INSM's long-term viability. The one negative is that the market just does not seem to value these niche biotechs. In any case, it should be an easy double from here on the court case alone - even if I have to wait 6 months.
All IMHO and thanks for your comments.
PS_ I haven't been interested in INSM at all, but the drop after approval started to make me think about buying. It just doesn't make sense that this is under $2 when TRCA was in the low teens I think with a similar drug.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 85092 by rstor1
Message Thread [ View ]
Good post from yahoo board
Re: The reality of Insmed
by: sheepherder1976
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 04/06/06 12:39 pm
Msg: 83936 of 83956
You really haven't a clue. The key here for INSM is that it hasn't needed a partner. That's not arrogance. It's sound management of company resources. INSM's pps, like most biotech stocks, is going to fluctuate 50% or more between highs and lows on an annual basis. But the key for the investor now is that IPLEX has already passed the riskiest stages of biotech investing and will generate future cashflows for clinical trials of other indications and the pipeline. Raising money is not proving to be tough for INSM, which is great even though it's come at the expense of some dilution. INSM's float and recent offering also allows access to institutional investors. The key for longs is the tremendous upside. By maintaining control of IPLEX, which is approved for GHIS and its lead drug candidate for future indications, the likelihood is INSM's market cap will rise significantly higher. Several investors here have more than doubled their money in the last year and IMO longs who stick with INSM over then next 2-3 years will at least double or triple their money. Most biotech companies that have an FDA approved drug are valued in excess of $500 million and INSM isn't, which presents a great value. When one or more of the IPLEX indications in Phase II goes to Phase III, it will surely go beyond that and with an approval of one of those, INSM may become a billion-dollar biotech. Recall too, that cancer treatments are in the pipeline and that this is similar to how DNA started, with a growth hormone. You can bet your ass INSM management and PJ Young know this and see it as a real possibility for INSM. They have made their bet that early dilution won't effect their equity and options in the long haul and will give INSM money it needs to maintain complete control while leveraging IPLEX and the pipe into a promising future. Anyone who invests in biotech or who understands INSM's science sees the opportunity INSM has to make substantial profits. We have an approved drug with one indication, several potential indications in Phase II, and cancer in the pipe. Only time will tell but there are many solid reasons to be optimistic.
Does anyone know what the "lock up period and expiration" means?
http://pro.edgar-online.com/ipo/displayFundamentals.asp?cikid=72143&fnid=48478&IPO=0&con....
Does anyone know what the "lock up period" means?
http://pro.edgar-online.com/ipo/displayFundamentals.asp?cikid=72143&fnid=48478&IPO=0&con...
looks like quite a few of brokerage houses are doing "the deed"
Re: Investigation
by: nutodaboard
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 03/30/06 02:09 pm
Msg: 82009 of 82015
The only investigation that needs to be done is why seemingly negative news gets posted and reposted. The problem is that there are simply too many holders selling shares and not enough people wanting to buy at higher prices. I think the real problem is that the stock attracted so many day traders building good sized positions because they thought there was going to be some quick upside movement that did not happen. Now they are tired of what has become a boring stock (at least in their minds) and they are cashing out and taking their money to what they perceive to be hotter stocks. We really do need some sort of positive news from the company. The problem is they shouldn't and won't make something up. There are potentially a number of things that should happen soon that will generate some PR that should attract some attention and stimulate some new investors - until then the stock will probably settle in the trading range it is now in. Remember, MM's can't take a stock down when there are more buyers than sellers. They can, during a period like this, however build positions. I checked today as to who the MM's were and was surprised to find there were a good number including Merrill, Smith Barney, Schwab, e-Trade, Knight Trading and at least six or seven more. Let's all hope there is enough belief in INSM by some of these folks that they build positions for themselves. If they lose faith and more buyers do not appear the stock will go lower. Based on fundamentals it shouldn't but I don't beleive the investing public in general knows about INSM - YET!
Have to go now and won't be back on the board until this evening. My firm does not allow us access to posting to a message board. I just stopped by home for lunch. Later.
INTERSETING POST BY NUTODABOARD ON YAHOO BOARD
by: nutodaboard
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 03/29/06 07:49 pm
Msg: 81840 of 81842
I do not follow GNBT. I am a Financial Consultant with a full service Regional Brokerage firm. I hold Series 7, 8, 65 and 66 licenses. I have worked in the investment business for over thirty years and am currently a member of a NYSE committee (I am not allowed to say which one). My firm discourages FC's from trading what they call penny stocks (under $5) so most often I do not trade them. I became interested in INSM because Tobin Smith has it as a legacy stock pick and the more DD I did the more interested I became. Your question about rehashing old news that could be taken as a negative is obviously going on. 60 Minutes last Sunday had an interesting section on Hedge Funds and how they used misinformation to drive down stocks they had shorted. I seriously doubt that Hedge Funds are doing this with INSM because the stock price is already almost too low for them to make enough money to make it worth their effort. I would also think that would be the case with GNBT. I spoke with the lead Market Maker at our firm regarding the possibility of Short Sellers trying to drive INSM down and he doubted it. The short interest in the stock is not huge and normal short selling by Market Makers could explain most of that number. I do not know who the market makers are for INSM and GNBT but I am beginning to think they may be behind some of what is now happening. It would not be short selling but the reverse. If they really believe the stock has a future they could somehow be influencing the re-release of negative news to encourage selling and all the while be building up their own holdings. It would not be ethical but neither is what the Hedge Funds are doing.
All that being said I really do not know what is going on with INSM. I am suspicious because really there has been nothing but good news coming from INSM since December and the stock keeps going down. That brings up my one concern. Often we see stocks going down because there is something we don't know that more serious money does. I don't think that is the case with INSM because there was no problem selling 43MM shares in the offering and that would have had to have been to some serious money. But something is going on because the stock is now selling at maybe 3 1/2 times cash on hand, has an approved drug ready to go on maket and an exciting pipeline. The stock traded higher without money in the bank and no approved drug. The lawsuit for unfair business practice should be a non event and the patent suits won't be settled for a long time. I will be getting a list of who the market makers are and if they are the Ameritrades of the world I will be even more suspicious.
Still if the science is as good as it appears there is only so long it can be held down and before the stock starts moving up. Then if the MM's are holding large positions they will begin taking their profits somewhere down the line. That's why I am not selling but I am not adding to the positions of my clients or my own. I am still buying some for clients who don't own any and for whom risking a small amount of their portfolio is appropriate.
Long answer to your question but I wanted to get all my thoughts out there.
Mr. Tim Ryan at the Trout Group.
Talked w/ IR today.
by: retired_by_31 (29/M/West Michigan) 03/29/06 11:05 am
Msg: 81543 of 81550
After many failed attempts to talk with Baxter Phillips, I wrote a letter to several other people at Insmed, explaining Baxter's inability to return telephone calls etc. This morning, I received a very apologetic telephone call from a Mr. Tim Ryan at the Trout Group. Mr. Ryan is very open and very nice to converse with. The following is what I learned:
There have been no orders submitted for IPlex yet. INSM has completely hired senior management for the sales efforts. INSM has assembled roughly half of its on-the-ground sales force. INSM will launch IPlex probably in May, in between the two large endocrine meetings, which are scheduled for the end of April and beginning of June. INSM probably will use one or both of those endo meetings as a PR springboard for the launch. INSM has not set a price for IPlex yet, but probably will price at or slightly above TRCA's drug. There is no time frame set for European approval and INSM is still considering whether to partner in Europe.
Mr. Ryan informed me that Baxter Phillips is transitioning out of his position. Mr. Ryan apologized for Mr. Phillips lack of communication (with me) and said that it simply should not have happened.
if you would like to chat with Mr. Ryan here is how:
212-477-9007 ext 24
or
tryan@troutgroup.com
very nice engaging fellow
Quite period ending 3/31/2006
http://pro.edgar-online.com/ipo/displayFundamentals.asp?cikid=72143&fnid=48478&IPO=0&con...
Thanks for the info.
If I may ask, where do you stand on these lawsuits?
Thanks, Ed
Pending lawsuits
Can someone explain what the lawsuits are about and when these will go to court? I am lost on this.
Thanks Ed
Hope it will help folks someday
Diabetes breakthrough may end insulin injections
Updated Fri. Mar. 17 2006 6:23 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Bioengineers at the University of Calgary have successfully grown insulin producing cells in a lab, marking a major breakthrough in diabetes research.
The team of scientists hope to eventually transplant lab grown, insulin producing cells directly into the bodies of patients with Type 1 diabetes.
Type 1 diabetes makes the body unable to produce enough insulin, requiring those suffering from the disease to inject themselves with the hormone.
In theory, the transplant would eliminate the need for daily insulin injections by patients who suffer from the disease.
"This transplant procedure, developed in Edmonton, is the best thing to come in 20 years to treat type one diabetes," Dr. Leo Behie, the professor of chemical engineering in charge of the research project, told CTV Thursday.
The study is significant in the battle against diabetes but there are still many steps to be taken, including clinical trials. The tests that Behie and his team have done in his lab so far are very encouraging.
"In many cases people are off insulin and they have good sugar controls in their blood with no constrains in terms of eating. That is a big deal," said Behie.
The research stems from a sponsored project by New York-based Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International (JDRF), that set up 16 researchers from 13 universities around the world.
The researchers are trying to find the cause of the Type 1 disease that affects more than 19-million people worldwide.
"The people who receive the transplants, they have no doubt about it, that they would call this a cure, but I think in this consideration we have to be careful of the word cure. This is more of a treatment that increases hugely your quality of life," Behie said.
Behie and his team developed their conclusions by establishing bioreactor protocols for producing large quantities of pig pancreatic insulin-producing cells.
They hope this will lead to the large-scale production of islet-like structures which contain insulin-producing cells.
Researchers concluded that these cells may be suitable for treating individuals with Type 1 diabetes.
Donna Lillie, of the Canadian Diabetes Association, said the research presents a real possibility for people with Type 1 diabetes that they can get rid of their multiple daily injections.
"Dr. Behie's all-Canadian team has brought us one more step towards potentially securing a large supply of insulin-producing pancreatic cells for transplantation into individuals with Type 1 diabetes," Lillie said.
University of Alberta scientists transplanted cells into Type 1 diabetes sufferers in 2000, freeing some from injections over the last five years.
But the approach they used required pancreas cells from as many as three donor cadavers which created a supply headache. Even with the supply, only 10 per cent were able to stop taking insulin injections.
"There are not nearly enough of these human islets to meet the demand of those who would like to have this transplantation procedure," Behie said.
Behie says his plan to produce cloned cells on a large scale in computer-controlled bioreactors would "get rid of this supply bottleneck."
Behie said his goal is to provide Type 1 diabetes sufferers with a reliable supply of cells that eventually could be given through
Really
by: rehdvm2004 03/18/06 04:51 pm
Msg: 78336 of 78366
Patent law is not predicated on Napoleonic Law and legal hypotheses, per se. Adversarial arguments without support of technical facts will not be considered credible. There have been several patent attorneys on this board who have commented on some of these methods of review. Fact - INSM is a different substance (two antibodies linked by a biochemical bridge or "platform", aka "sandwiched" antibodies. Fact Iplex is a SID (single dose per day drug) and TRCA must be given BID (twice per day). Fact - Iplex has no associated hypoglycemia, which mimics low blood sugar or an overdose of insulin. Iplex has no associated hypoglycemia. Fact - the two antibodies working together have a different mechanismof action in the body. Does anybody really believe the second antibody is just added for ballast?!? Fact - INSM is rated as a more credible, scientifically sound company than TCRA. This pissing contest parallels the Genetics Institute-Amgen war of the mid 1980s. The judge recognized the difference right away and suggested to both parties that they cross license and just make the stuff. The medical profession will determine which product was better by results and demand. The same thing is going to happen here. Apples and oranges, different mechansims of action, differences, differences, differences. Bashers go ahead and make fools of yourselves. INSM would appeal any unjust, strong arm verdict with merit. Judges usually do not like to appear to be total fools. The differences and merits are going to come to light somewhere in the system. Lets see what transpires and let everyone's gums rest until the hearing.
Otherwise it is a waste of electrons and the bashers are just boring.
Good post from rstor1
Forget the price for the financing!
by: rstor1 (46/M/NY) 03/10/06 07:16 pm
Msg: 75759 of 75799
The bellyaching that goes on here is f'n absurd.
The people that bought the offering got a great deal because Insmed was in serious need of funds and everyone knew that the longer they waited, the worse the need, therefore the price would be lower. The guys with the money had the leverage. I'm glad it was at $2 and not at $1.50.
However, the whole discussion is beside the point. We knew we were going to dilute. We knew we needed money.
Now we have cash for about a year, and the company will eventually be valued on the business potential. And if you don't believe that this potential is worth a multiple of the current price, you don't belong invested here.
What I am trying to say is that the difference between a $2 offering and a $2.30 offering is a couple of months of burn. It might mean extra shares offered at the next financing or, if sales really ramp, it might not mean a whole lot.
But now investors will be able to look at the potential without their vision blocked by imminent dilution.
If you sold today because of the price of the financing, I wish you luck, because you won't make it on brains. If you are one of the guys roasting Young for the financing, you have got to be out of your gourd.
Bob
How far down the road do you think this might happen?