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.
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:
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):
You can stick a fork in the CA...
No more do-overs for the plaintiff...
IF the CA is delaying a partnership, there is probably still work to be done following dismissal before any type of announcement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes I have. And I hate when that happens. ;)
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.
Good point. It would seem to add value to market cap, but going back to the dilution, maybe not as much in the PPS.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
But how does that generate more buyers? Seems like the problem is very low buying (and selling) interest right now.
Apparently everybody who wants some has as much as they want, and nobody is particularly eager to sell any.
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
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another word is "owners"... who should be respected accordingly.
Is Bavi indicated for Anemia? Maybe it can do something for the volume.
Yes but the important thing is that there is "liquidity!"