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.
PPHMP is up nicely today to 25.395.
Sues SA to learn the identity of a blogger but lobbies the SEC to keep the extent of his holdings secret...
"Transparency is for me, but not for thee."
Hard for the retail guy to trade against the "pros" when the information is so asymmetrical. All kinds of shenanigans in the market that result in inexplicable trading patterns, but agree that "someone" or "some people" have probably been accumulating. The problem is stripping out all the non-beneficial trading to see the real picture.
Good question. Assuming they had to include that language on the basis that, in theory, an appeal could happen. But what are the realistic chances of an appeal?
It looks like the Judge disregarded most of the SAC on the grounds that it was an inappropriate attempt to re-litigate issues already decided by the Court, and what remained were a few dubious factual contentions with no real bearing on the legal issues.
Relevant parts of the ruling state:
The significant differences between Plaintiff’s FAC and SAC are few. Plaintiff has added some factual allegations from new confidential witnesses, and claims that Peregrine could have easily verified its Phase II clinical trial results after the trial was unblinded...
A considerable portion of Plaintiff’s opposition brief is dedicated to rehashing arguments the Court has already rejected. [bold added] Most significantly, Plaintiff claims that Peregrine had a duty to verify its Phase II trial results before releasing information to the public, Opp. 3:1-4:2; and argues that the “core operations” doctrine is applicable here, id 10:13-13:22. The Court hasalready considered and rejected those arguments. See Nov. 15, 2013 Order at 4-5; Aug. 13, 2013 Order at 13-15. The Court has also previously addressed Plaintiff’s claims regarding Abbvie, CSM, and individual Defendants’ compensation. See Nov. 15, 2013 Order at 7; Aug. 13, 2013 Order at 16.
The proper way to dispute the Court’s prior rulings is through a motion for reconsideration. Given that Plaintiff has not filed such a motion, the Court declines to revisit the analyses set out in its prior opinions[bold added]...
...The crux of Plaintiff’s new allegations is that Peregrine could have easily verified the results of the Phase II bavituximab trial, but failed to do so before announcing the trial’s results...These new allegations do not address the core issue in dispute...The issue is whether Defendants acted with “deliberate recklessness.”...None of Plaintiff’s new allegations are responsive to that inquiry.[bold added] Even assuming that the confidential witnesses whose statements serve as the foundation for Plaintiff’s claims are reliable, Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of anything that would support a cogent and compelling inference of scienter.[bold added]
Did they HAVE to throw that in about the appeal? Just like them, make any good news sound bad.
Does anyone know of another stock where the CA has been dismissed to compare the 8-K's?
Agreed, CP. This BS case was utterly pathetic and reeks of improper motive and abuse of the legal process. Since the (now discredited) lawsuit was reported in the Annual Report, shouldn't a PR be appropriate?
From the 2013 Annual Report. I believe the lead plaintiff might have changed since then (I think a reference to the CA is also in the quarterly reports):
WE AND CERTAIN OF OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND ONE CONSULTANT HAVE BEEN NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN
LITIGATION THAT COULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL COSTS AND DIVERT MANAGEMENT’S ATTENTION.
On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) against us and certain of our executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were
brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and the Individual Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
interim median overall survival results of our bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 5, 2013, the court appointed James T. Fahey as lead plaintiff in the action. The
lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on April 15, 2013. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on June 14, 2013. The lead plaintiff has until July 15, 2013, to file an answer to our motion to dismiss. A hearing before the Court on our motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 19, 2013.
There is no guarantee that we will be successful in defending the amended consolidated lawsuit. Also, our insurance coverage may be insufficient, our assets may be insufficient to cover any amounts that exceed our insurance coverage, and we may have to pay damage awards or otherwise may enter into settlement arrangements in connection with such claims. A settlement of the lawsuit could involve the issuance of common stock or other equity, which may dilute your ownership interest. Any payments or settlement arrangements could have material adverse effects on our business, operating results, financial condition or your ownership interest. Even if the lead plaintiff’s claims are not successful, this litigation could result in substantial costs and significantly and adversely impact our reputation and divert management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition or partnering efforts. In addition, such consolidated lawsuit may make it more
difficult to finance our operations, obtain certain types of insurance (including directors’ and officers’ liability
insurance), and attract and retain qualified executive officers, other employees and directors.
The Other Guy, allow me to not agree with :
Quote:
First, out of "respect" to the losers of the trial.
A) I don't know about you, but I felt flooded with messages from all the ambulance-grade CA chaser law offices calling for plaintiffs.
B) Up to personal letters to shareholders via the brokers
C) They produced NOTHING!
D) They lingered AT PURPOSE by repeating the SAME story in filing and extensions.
E) They only hoped PPHM would pay them off so this would go away.
Out of respect for the looser you said? Ney, so pls PPHM don't hesitate and PR this IMO.
You can stick a fork in the CA...
No more do-overs for the plaintiff...
...Granting Plaintiff a fourth chance to plead his claims would mean that Plaintiff would be filing a complaint over a year and a half after he initiated this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to relitigate issues that have already been decided, together with Plaintiff’s failure to specify what amendments he might make if granted leave to amend, strongly suggest that granting leave to amend would be futile. Under the circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to deny leave to amend...
...For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, without leave to amend.
IF the CA is delaying a partnership, there is probably still work to be done following dismissal before any type of announcement.
If everyone wants the below to be so before they can announce anything significant then I would argue we are weeks away if not months. If this is the case, I don't think management is going to want dismissed case, extend options, etc. and then announce a partnership the next day. That to me would look a little suspicious.
Why spend a lot of time and money for DD based on a contingency when simply waiting would appear to be the more prudent and fiscally responsible path. To you second point, fall out could tend to effect anyone vested in the financial health of the company, not the least of whom would be a partner.
Why would a partner care about the stupid ass CA when they could put a clause in a contract saying the partnership is contingent on dismissal or any fall out is Peregrine's problem alone?
That's the type of stuff we need to squash on the message board. It just gets people's hopes up waiting for the next empty deadline to pass and then everyone gets all bitchy when nothing happens. The same goes for the awarding of options.
The Second Amended Complaint struck me as defiant. One almost has to wonder why the plaintiff put the Court, the company, and the current shareholders through this exercise. Far be it from me to second guess the Judge, but unless I'm missing some hidden nuance, I can't imagine that he will be very happy about this.
Judge's note had a certain...
PISSED TONE TO IT if you ask me; maybe he'll award us attorney fees, which would be sweeeeeet.
imo.
porkchop11 :0
See cheynew's post below. The Judge took the case off calendar and will issue a ruling on the pleadings with no hearing. We may see something before May 5th.
I agree and if many think that the value will be released only after a partner is signed.... May 5th becomes an important day. Pacer.gov probably wouldn't be updated till May 6th or 7th ? ...which also falls within that very same period of when the exec management are handed their options. Although nothing on the events page for Peregrine....lots looming in the coming days.
No AF articles at all on Peregrine.... after picking on the stock for months and months, wonder why he doesn't cover Peregrine any more?
Thinking that doesn't look very good for the plaintiff, who appears to have simply recycled the discredited legal theory that the Judge rejected the last time around.
Filed yesterday:
Full docket text for document 57:
TEXT ONLY ENTRY IN CHAMBERS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [54] set for hearing on 05/05/14 is taken under submission and off calendar. Accordingly, no appearance by counsel is necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of the submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (wm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
Really no reason the CA should hold up any news. Agree that material events have to be disclosed. The only thing it could possibly hold up, imo, is inking a deal with partner, i.e., partner wants to see CA disposed of before moving forward. Complete speculation on my part. Not suggesting that is actually the case with any level of confidence, but either way we will know soon enough.
I disagree that the CA is holding up any pending news from PPHM. If PPHM had material news they would be releasing it. They might have a gag order directly related to the events covered in the CA but highly unlikely that has an umbrella for all future events.
Yes I have. And I hate when that happens. ;)
Have you ever gone back to buy something and it now cost twice as much or more to buy. Real difficult to pay a lot more for something you could have had for half as much.
Anything is possible. But so vaguely worded it's difficult to draw a conclusion. "Upon information and belief, CW3 believes.." seems to concede pure conjecture rather than first hand knowledge on the part of CW3. Moreover, why would anyone be expected to "verify the accuracy" of data to the extent suggested in the normal course of a double blind study before "releasing statements?" The entire premise defies common sense.
An interesting question regarding CW3 is when the plaintiff that brought CW3 forward knew about the AbbVie discussions.
One possibility is CW3 is telling the truth?
"Upon information and belief, CW3 believes that Abbvie refused to do business with a company or its executives who would be deliberately reckless in releasing statements about the positive nature of clinical data before verifying the accuracy of the data or the truth and accuracy of their own statements or who even
failed to verify which patients received which substance, placebo or bavituximab."
Good point. It would seem to add value to market cap, but going back to the dilution, maybe not as much in the PPS.
Not holding it down, I meant the cash on hand should be factored in if you're thinking about differences between the last time we shot to $5 and (hopefully) the next time.
All other things being equal, would you rather invest in a company (with a running atm) that has no money in the bank or $70m+?
Agreed. But what I can't figure out is why the deal is not back on the table. FDA gave approval on a very conservative interpretation of the Phase II data. One would imagine that would renew interest in the deal. For that reason, I have questioned whether the class action lawsuit (frivolous as it is) is not holding something up. Pure conjecture. I have no background on whether such a thing would impact due diligence, but I have posed that question here before and nobody seems to have an decisive answer either way. The other possibility (which if recollection serves correct you may have suggested before) is that there is a very big deal on the table. Given the amount of IP involved, negotiations and due diligence might simply take a considerable amount of time to work through.
I mentioned the dilution, which is two of the three items you list but agree that there is an arguably stupid amount of cash sitting around. But how is excess cash holding down the share price? If anything it might make the company an attractive takeover target.
You're leaving out a lot of important stuff. The three big ones IMO are:
- Share count is disgustingly higher.
- We have a stupid amount of cash sitting around ($70m? Can't remember at the moment)
- We can always go back to the PPHMP well for another semi-less diluting cash infusion. (Can't we?)
The CC or other communication from management couldn't hurt! I think the biggest driver would be a statement that the ATM will no longer be used. I see two differences remaining now versus the run above $5.00 prior to the labeling issue (besides the obvious fact that the company is now in PH III!)
1) Prior to the run on the original PH II data, SK announced that there would be no more dilutive financing. Subsequent to that statement, there has been round after round of dilution. (Reasonable given the bank calling back the $25MM loan, but still unsettling to the market.)
2) Now there is an unresolved class action lawsuit against the company.
Of the two, I would speculate that a non-dilutive financing announcement is the bigger price mover. And to the extent that the lawsuit could be either an impediment to partnership talks or has been simply been priced in, it should be moot next week when it appears likely that the judge will dismiss the CA once and for all. Regardless of the degree of negative value imputed to either of the above, announce that there will be no more dilution and that the CA lawsuit has been tossed, and I would expect to be trading at least above $3.50.. a very conservative figure - above $8 would not be a total surprise - but how to account for the dilution since the labeling fiasco? All imo.
IMO Peregrine should hold a conference call to inform investors that the SUNRISE trial is enrolling well and that there will be a look-in in late 2014, and if all markers are trending as expected the company will apply for AA. The company should also make a statement that the ATM will no longer be used and the company has enough capital to take it through applying for AA in early 2015 through FDA approval in 2015.
With a strong confident PR like that wall street would run the stock north of 8/share in short time.
It might help investor confidence in a market full of monkey business...
Shareholders Sick of Phantom Stock Sales
Good point. Need a partner soon so they turn off the printing press!
Remember the market cap as well as all the new shares being printed and not just pps. By then $30 per share will mean a a $7.5B market cap on approval.
Agree with your price brackets, but wonder if approval might be even higher, say $30-$50. I think Avid adds something to the valuation in that it accelerates the time to commercial production.
I am ready. Let's roll. They will not get my shares at $3-5. Ready for run ($3-5 on partnership rumors), partnership ($5-10), BTD ($10-15), AA ($15-20), approval($20-30), and buyout ($30-$100 depending on when).
Hard to tell exactly happened during the 80 million share spike, since there is zero transparency in the market anymore, but it wasn't ALL bots and day traders. I think you make a valid point about setting up sellers for the next leg up. Sucks if you didn't take some profit at $3 the last time, but it will suck even more if you sell at $3 on the next run and then watch it go to $8.00.
This itself won't create buyers. However, IMO someone is loading up in anticipation of news. Partnership, kick ass clinical data re breast and/or liver, CNBC coverage etc. and we take off.
Also, IMO there will be a lot of sellers in the $3-$5 range who have been set up given prior pullbacks. However, this time it does not pullback until much higher levels. Once again, we shall see.
Even if you can afford to wait, low PPS means more chance for dilution both by options to management and ATM sales, basically giving away what little appreciation we do realize. I know we might be trading in the $80s in three years, but some unrealized ROI would be nice right now.
When does the value train start rolling for us long term holders. Not too keen on being here as we start the bavi + yervoy + ? at a pps of $1.70 because we are still diluting and have no partner.
I can wait a long time but I prefer to be able to take some off the table at some point while I wait for the rest of pphm IP development.
But how does that generate more buyers? Seems like the problem is very low buying (and selling) interest right now.
IMO someone has been accumulating a lot of shares in the $1.72-$1.79 range with a big old lid on at $1.80. Once they are full, we break out.
Apparently everybody who wants some has as much as they want, and nobody is particularly eager to sell any.
This is our lowest volume since February 13.
How did it double? The spike was March 5 & 6.
Short interest is relatively low, imo. The reason for any PPS manipulation is simple. It's called the market. They do it because they can.
Sett.Date-----Short Interest--Avg Daily Sh.Vol---Days To Cover
4/15/2014-------15,358,319------3,069,961-------5.002773
3/31/2014-------15,082,020------3,252,210-------4.637468
3/14/2014-------15,610,186------11,996,271------1.301253
2/28/2014-------10,280,960------1,869,901-------5.498131
2/14/2014-------10,244,573------2,269,345-------4.514330
1/31/2014-------10,075,940------4,793,912-------2.101820
1/15/2014-------8,852,918-------6,454,605-------1.371566
Short interest increased by double right after the mysterious two day spike. Thank you for pointing out that there is some serious PPS manipulation going on here. Manipulation doesn't happen on worthless stocks...I was going to hold my buy until mid May but you (and all your attempts)have convinced me otherwise. I'm buyin tomorrow.
Your point #5 is highly important but overlooked in many critiques of the PH II NSCLC study. In order to accommodate the dose switching, Peregrine took a very conservative approach in analyzing the PH II data which tends to understate the efficacy of Bavi. Having said that, the results were still good, and FDA allowed the company to move to PH III.
5) PII control arm OVER PERFORMED as it got Bavi
Aside from the unique labeling fiasco setback, I see similarities in the trajectories of PPHM and MEDX (but PPHM seems to have more indications and a more valuable IP portfolio), not the least of which is the same nonsense from the same "journalists" in the financial media. Let's hope the trajectories don't end the same way with a cheap buyout from BMY!
Another was the BOD's admitted failure to require GS, MEDX' retained financial advisor, to place a value on the 78 or so patents and other IP held by MEDX to protect its pipeline in the course of opining that the $16 share price was fair value.
entdoc,
Agree the company has come a long way since TCLN. I think we're still two years away from "big" status, but I can see being somewhere in the $8-16 range by end of year. Still, biotech stocks are a wild ride, and a HUGE run (and retrace) between now and the end of PH III would not be a surprise at all.
skweze,one last thing before you hit the vin et cuisine: You said, "Those interested in "clinical stage biotechs" are probably already in". Methinks there is an enormously improved outlook for PPHM now vs. when I bought into PPHM Cotara story 15 years ago. PPHM is IMO a very advanced-stage biotech soon to become a mid-size big pharma...or the partner of one. I agree that the company still must turn the playbook to that page.
entdoc,
I'll take $16.00 by years end, but won't argue with $100! Three catalysts hopefully not far off that could move the needle...
1) partner
2) company announces no more dilutive financing
3) Class action suit gets tossed out (perhaps minimal, but should happen 5/5 or thereabouts.)
As far as new retail money, I don't know how many full service retail brokers are out there putting clients into PPHM. The company has been around for awhile, so I would guess that most of the buyers who like clinical stage biotech are already in.
Great weekend all!
skweze, agreed there are not a lot of buyers. Market action requires lubrication with the uninitiated and uninformed player's money, and there are painfully few fools frequenting the PPHM board. Not that there aren't a few of us trapped here wishing we were in Exxon-land or even St. John, USVI. But on the whole, those of us remaining through > a decade of holding and accumulating PPHM, are committed to not easily losing our hard-earned money. The cautious and informed optimism of this PPHM IHub blog, and of die-hard PPHM stockholders, is off-putting to the usual cannibals and criminals trying to trap unsuspecting and unwary new "players". All here are invested in PPHM, hoping to move the ball closer to the goal-line. And through PPHM science that is exactly what has, in fact, happened. Anyone here with a modicum of scientific acumen knows what a contribution PPHM and UTSW Dept. of Pharmacology has made. And Dr. Philip Thorpe from that institution and department. Absolutely outstanding examples of scientific inquiry. The missteps possible when the eyes of the scientific community are zeroed in on a new concept are many, and PPHM in my opinion, has made few mistakes. The tragedy is that if a technology isn't given away to established interests, it must overcome an incredible number of marketplace hurdles from competition. No buyers? No wonder. We aren't giving anything away here. We are not thrilled this pump and dump here, or those who clog up the communications channels with nonsense aimed at the gullible new trader. I do not personally care that the stock price remains right where it is. As long as it hits $100 by year's end. Cheers everyone. This has really been sumpin'!
Probably two reasons 1) not a lot of buyers right now, and 2) even when there are buyers, the MMs and HFTs have so many phantom shares to play with that they can put the price anywhere they feel like.
That may be the reason we will stay at our current levels until something major is announced and show Wallstreet the blockbuster we really have.
Very true! Recalling that well before the sale to BMY, MEDX had an inexplicable run from the $3.00 range to over $100 and back down to $3ish. If a $1.75 to $3.15 round trip gives anyone heart burn, think how that felt.
That is probably because Medarex had savvy Institutional Investors, where as PPHM has a greedy BoD - so no worries
Be careful what you wish for with BMY. They drove a hard bargain with Medarex and many shareholders felt the picked up the company too cheap.
We may not have to wait that long. What if the bavi + Yervoy trial tops the 52% response rate and OS beats the 80% ? I believe it will be game on right then because both Merck and BMY will see the light.
I loaded up it hit $0.25 and then felt like a genius when I a closed a big portion of my position within a month at $1.00..but soon felt like an idiot when it shot up to almost $16.00 over the next month or two.
Hate when that happens.
Anyways somewhere from the back of my brain seem to remember .25 cents but that was the lowest from my recollections.
Seems to be a legit question about the plaintiff who brought forward the confidential witness who disclosed the AbbVie discussion: When did that plaintiff know about the AbbVie talks, and did he trade on that information?
One also has to wonder why the plaintiff insists on recycling a complaint grounded in a theory already discredited by the judge. Seems like the judge might not be that happy to see this wind up on his desk again with nothing new since the last time he dismissed the case.
The question is... how did they know? and if Abbott and Peregrine made a deal, guess who would have been in the money on many options?? The very same plaintiff that now feels he needs to file a lawsuit because he was not expecting Peregrine to allow all hell to break loose and go to multiple Federal Authorities with their "clear evidence of dose switching".
Interesting question is why AREN'T the MMs dropping the price at with so little volume?
There is nothing conceivable that the lawsuits could prevent the company from communicating material information to investors. The Class Action, which should be tossed on 5/5, could in theory hold up progress on financing or a partnership. That is open to debate, but it would not in any case serve as a gag order on IR. In the suit against CSM, the company is the plaintiff, so what is the financial exposure there other than none? It seems there are two possible outcomes, zero award, or some figure more than zero paid to Peregrine. Further, how would the suit against CSM prevent IR from talking about anything that is of material significance? All imo.
Agreed. Using the lawsuits is just an easy way for them to get off the phone or move on to the next email.
Also less shares on the street to jerk with if institutional holdings are high. Guessing a lot of institutions have two primary concerns right now, 1) potential for dilution, and 2) composition of BOD. Perhaps to a lesser degree some concern over the CA lawsuit but whatever one's opinion on the impact of the CA, it looks like it goes away in early May. All imo.
sorry but it takes 5 million share blocks to move the share price, not 500 shares... thus the need for institutions...
Another word is "owners"... who should be respected accordingly.
That is all his customers. Not one, two, three, or 1000. All of them.
Is Bavi indicated for Anemia? Maybe it can do something for the volume.
Yes but the important thing is that there is "liquidity!"
Up 0.0004 in AH... Lol