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.
Interesting end of day. It looks like you may be onto something, Sir.
If the court finds that CSM's potentially illegal conduct is not subject to any "limit of liability" clause in the service contract, it looks like damages could reach 9 figures. All imo.
Available, yes. But they are both in large PDFs and as far as I know there is no way to post them directly to the board, so I used OCR to extract some portions to cut and paste into a post.
Agree that the damages appear to greatly exceed $32MM, which is why CSM is trying to limit them before the case gets to trial. All imo.
Kind of runs contrary to the narrative that there is no scientific promise and management is doing nothing more than running the ATM and other financing vehicles simply to preserve their own salaries while producing nothing of value to shareholders. Guessing that at least one particular "financial media" sock puppet will have his panties in a bunch now...
Filed on 6/23
Declaration of Joseph Shan. See caveats in original post about the quality of the OCR scan from the original pdf.
Starting at paragraph 19, one can see just how close the company was to MASSIVE success before the CSM debacle, and just how much damage, delay, and additional costs were caused. Say what you will about management, but they did engineer a spectacular recovery from this mess, and the endgame appears to remain clearly in focus. All imo, of course.
FROM: DECLARATION OF JOSEPH S. SHAN, M.P.H. IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Declaration of Jeffery Masten attached to Court filing. Same caveats on the OCR scan regarding accuracy and glitches from my original post. Research the original Court filing for complete accuracy.
FROM: DECLARATION OF JEFFREY MASTEN IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Excerpts from Court Filing in CSM Case. Caveat that this is an OCR scan of the PDF Court filing. It may not be 100% faithful transcription and may have some OCR glitches. This gives a good picture of the extent of setbacks, damage, and delay allegedly caused by CSM. Because of the sheer length of the filing, I left out the section with the legal arguments against exculpatory caps. Anyone with further interest and desiring a fully accurate transcription should research the actual filings.
From: PEREGRINE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CLINICAL SUPPLIES MANAGEMENT, INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Dunno...but that describes most trading days. There is no reason to trend anyway but sideways. At this point in the company's history, the next significant move will be big in either direction.
Maybe earnings will be up based upon Avid bookings that did not invoice last quarter. Not a game changer as a catalyst since this stock doesn't trade on earnings, but one less arrow in the quiver of the bears.
If PPHMP is trading on the open market at $24.15, how is MLV going to sell another $30MM, or 1.2MM shares of Series E preferred at $25.00?
Very interesting comments CP. Are you saying that MMs are NOT exempt from regulations that prohibit naked shorting? I thought that the MMs could short without locating shares if it was in connection with a "bona-fide" market making activity.
Is it possible that limit orders were placed in extended trading and someone simply decided to grab them? Just offering a hypothetical. I don't fully understand what goes on with the ECNs after hours.
They never make it that easy. How about a spike and swipe head-fake, then some substantial news following heavy selling at $3.00?
Preferred buyers hedging makes sense, but how did that drive 80MM in volume? Unless an HFT algo picked up on the buying interest and tried to front run it, starting a snowball effect with day traders and other algo bots piling on... all imo.
If this keeps up, the company is in danger of being removed from the list of stocks offered by ShareBuilder. <g>
Dividend is $0.66, but $24.00 still seems mispriced. Maybe an opportunity for some kind of convertible arbitrage, but I'm not familiar with those strategies.
Isn't today the ex-date?
What we are seeing is basically an undistorted picture of beneficial interest. Agree that most beneficial owners have already taken their positions, so absent a price catalyst, no more volume than the present should be expected. The problem is that the next time new money starts lining up, the HFT bots will jump in with front running and algo-bot battles, which then draws the day traders in, all of which grossly distorts the actual buying interest, beneficial trading volume, short interest, etc, so the question will then be how much of it is real buying interest and how much just phantom shares going back and forth. Judging from the size of the last run up (still unexplained, btw), the percentage of phantom shares can be rather significant. All imo.
CP - Your analysis is on point. Clearly the CA "Appellant," i.e., adjudicated loser, does not have a winnable case, yet they defiantly persist (with a case thoroughly discredited by the trail court) even with the possibility of sanctions (both monetary and ethical) above and beyond the actual out of pocket costs of perpetuating this spectacle.
Frivolous Lawsuits
With no reasonable expectation of a favorable verdict by the court, one can only wonder why the appellant and the attorney driving this litigious clown car are so bent on throwing a wrench into the machine. PPHM, to their credit, has refused to "settle" on a meritless lawsuit. So with essentially zero chance of monetary reward - and with a rather compelling case for costly sanctions against them - why on earth are the discredited plaintiffs proceeding? What DO they hope to gain from this? Whatever the agenda, it is clearly to the detriment of shareholders, many of whom may be, ironically, members of the "class" the lawsuit purports to "represent." It likewise to the detriment of those who might benefit from the unimpeded progress of a promising cancer therapy. Civil society and the court should find this travesty highly repugnant.
More details below. Looks like they can easily drag this into 2015.
PACER. I posted the docket record earlier.
Back as an appeal, one presumes. Hopefully, the Appellate Court rejects the application.
There is a new case link on PACER which leads to the following..
It is on PACER opened as new case entry, which directs you to the appeal...
Class Action suit notice of appeal filed on 5/29. Given the utter frivolousness of the case as demonstrated by the Trial Court's multiple dismissals of the twice amended complaint, one has to wonder precisely why the plaintiffs attorney calculates that she can "elicit" a settlement through such vexatious machinations. Surely, she can not reasonably anticipate that the Court will ultimately rule in her favor on the merits of this nonsense.
Moreover, since the plaintiffs appear to have had inside knowledge about the partnership discussions with AbbVie, one has to wonder precisely why they now appear to calculate that company would buy them off simply to avoid further legal delays. (It would be ridiculous to conclude that the company fears an adverse ruling.)
Given the tenor of the Trial Court's memorandum dismissing the thrice discredited complaint, shareholders should hope that the company moves for judicial sanctions against this sham litigation.
As a matter of sound public policy, courts need to put an end to this kind of flimflam crap!
Looks like some PPS moment heading into June...
Well how about that?
CP, agreed that oncology has a different paradigm than other pharma indications, but a successful market launch still appears to be a complicated endeavor. Just wondering how many industry veterans Peregrine has, or will have, on staff to address the challenges after FDA approval. It seems to me that an alliance with an established oncology franchise would at minimum improve or expedite access to opinion leaders, perscribers, and payers.
I found the following paper on the subject informative, so I thought I'd share it with the group:
IMS ONCOLOGY LAUNCH EXCELLENCE STUDY
One thing the company has in its favor in "going at it alone" is existing manufacturing capability and expertise. But the most compelling reason for a partner is marketing: for that you need "big" pharma wherewithal. I also expect a partnership and that the partner makes a bid for the company sometime during the Sunrise trial. In the meantime, it would be nice to have some kind of update from management, but something tells me that we don't hear anything until June. All imo.
CP, all good points, but dilution since the dose switching fiasco coupled with the loss of the (non-dilutive) bank loan, and the uncertainty regarding future dilutive financings surely have an impact on the current PPS. Long term, in theory, some of the dilution should find its way back into owner equity as ROI on the working capital raised, but for now the PPS languishes at $1.68, when it could be as high as $4.66 (my WAG) with more clarity on future financing...even without a partner "officially" on board. All IMO. I welcome the comments of you and others on my "rosy scenario" potential present valuation.
Maybe it was short covering. They always seem to know when to close their positions.
Two big PPS game changers imo: a partner or an announcement from management that there will be no more dilutive financing. Can't underestimate the impact of dilution on investor sentiment: any gains made have been absorbed.
You are mixing apples and bananas, imo. Institutional ownership is based on common stock only. That's not to say that institutions don't own some if not most of the preferred shares, but it could be viewed as similar to institutions holding bonds in their portfolio.
Take out the noise from the bots and you get the real picture on buying and selling interest, which lately is a stalemate.
Note to BOD: If you sell to BMY, kindly ensure that the value of all IP is reflected in the sale price.
PPHM $1.76....BRK-A: $191,349.81 Underperforming yet another invidious comparison..
The sky must be falling!
Yes, but the BOD is the Schrödinger's Cat.**
Sad but true. Funny thing is that short interest is relatively low (at least as of the last reporting), and instead the price appears to be fading down because of low buyer interest. Looks like anyone interested in the company has already taken a position.
Nice volume! No doubt keeping the traders at ShareBuilder very busy today.