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.
Starting to think you work for BP to try and convince investors to give gold for peanuts.
we have no mono yet, sadly. (edited)
Edit: Also look at the difference between 'going alone' and licensing.
Well, as we all know, there's two sides to every story, so I'm not going to weigh in until I hear from the other side. The bottom line is the amount RP is seeking for damages is very little, so it's not going to break the company, and I doubt that's his intent given that he's the largest shareholder. I also know this type of lawsuit can go on for years, and then there's the appeal process. I don't see this as our problem, but rather the problem of the BP that buys us in the next year or two. The hearings will probably get delayed for the next year or two, and then given the small amount that he's seeking, they may just settle out of court to just make it go away. I see this as being little more than a nuisance for now.
Form 8-K Just filed
Item 8.01. Other Events.
As previously announced, effective July 25, 2019, the board of directors of CytoDyn Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), terminated the employment of Dr. Richard G. Pestell for cause pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement with the Company. Dr. Pestell is the Company’s former Chief Medical Officer and a former director. On August 22, 2019, the Company received notice that Dr. Pestell filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging breach of Dr. Pestell’s employment agreement, among other claims, and seeking damages in the amount of certain severance entitlements thereunder, among other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.
...not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think what's creating the confusion is that Charlie was on Dr. Oz more than once. He was first on Dr. Oz in 2016 with Dr. NP sitting beside him. Since then, Charlie has confirmed in several interviews that he's on Pro-140, however I haven't seen him specifically refer to Pro-140 in the last year or so, but as far as we know, he's still on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arleneweintraub/2016/02/11/charlie-sheen-tells-dr-oz-he-wants-in-on-tiny-cytodyns-hiv-trial/#3e8df2542cd0
"I wonder if Pestell could start dumping shares."
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. If so, it will be a catch-22 for Pestell because I would think that if another BP wants to employee him, it would be a conflict of interest for him to be a major shareholder in a competitor. And how does he unload such a large number of shares quickly? You certainly can't do it on the open market without crashing the value of his shares. Perhaps he'll keep them for now given that he clearly believes in the science and knows their value will probably increase significantly in the next few months, or at least that's what he's been telling us (I think).
I suspect there will be a drop this morning and we'll regain some of it this afternoon, but will probably close in the red today. What's really got me wondering is why they extended the TO to end the day after Tuesday's conference call. If they announce that we've injected the first TNBC patient, then I think we'll start seeing some green again, but I guess we'll soon know. I'm certainly not selling but maybe buying some popcorn to watch the show between now and EOD Wednesday.
Thanks Grip. As you know, it's quite common for there to be conflict when you have a former CEO and current CEO pushing the same company in two different directions. Pestell's focus is on cancer and NP's is on HIV and using the funds to push the BLA and pivotal mono trial forward, and Pestell probably wanted to move faster on the cancer trials. This is all speculation, of course.
"Wondering if Pestell was working to overthrow Nader..." Bingo - that's what I suspect.
"If the NDA contained non-publicly disclosed material information that could affect the stock price or Cytodyn put itself and Paulson investors at risk with the SEC."
With all due respect, you're clearly not familiar with how pre-revenue companies raise capital. An NDA is an "agreement" and never contains confidential information. Believe what you wish...
Any investor who is under an NDA ( as they were when they acquired the warrants) can exercise the warrants at any time after they are acquired.
Here we go again... Yes, exercising warrants is a "purchase" but you're purchasing it directly from the company which is NOT subject to insider trading! Where does SEC's rule 10b5-1 say that it applies to warrants?
"Paulson works for CYDY and helps finance, perhaps he must wait Tuesday for CYDY to publicize the information he already knows, so he can legally participate in TO"
No, exercising warrants means they're purchasing shares DIRECTLY from the company and not on the open market. Anyone who is privy to confidential (i.e. non-public) information cannot buy/sell on the OPEN market until the non-public information is made public, but they can purchase shares directly from the company because the company obviously knows the non-public information and is not at a disadvantage as those who may be buying/selling on the open market. This is why investors who signed an NDA were able to participate in the cash raises by purchasing shares (and obtaining warrants) directly from the company.
"all references to the Expiration Date of the Offer to Amend and Exercise are hereby amended to refer instead to July 31, 2019"
Great catch! Given they're extending the TO by only one week, and they're scheduling a conference call for investors and the MEDIA just prior to the extended TO deadline, leads me to believe they've injected the first TNBC patient. I'm very optimistic this will be the catalyst to jump start the sp. I think the time to accumulate is about over!
"If Lawman or another warrant holder that has previously discussed their warrants says there was an NDA then I'll believe."
That comment in itself underscores your lack of understanding about this stock.
"None of your previous posts claimed that you held warrants and in fact your discussion of warrants would lead one to believe you held no warrants"
When did I say I held warrants?? You just "assumed" I held warrants. Signing an NDA does NOT obligate you to participate in the raise(s).
Good Grief! Please do some DD (i.e. Due Diligence) before you respond. I foolishly tried to help you understand the NDA process, and I've been on the defensive ever since. Believe what you want - I'm outta here!
"Except there were no restrictions on the sale of stocks or warrants on any of the Paulson offerings. So "if" there was an NDA then it contained no insider information."
"IF" there was an NDA, then it contained "no" insider information??? There's no "if" -- they signed NDAs! Everyone on this board but you knows that. There is NO reason to sign an NDA if you're not being given insider information. Do you understand what an NDA is and why they're used?
I've tried to explain this to you but you just want to argue about something that you clearly don't understand. Do a little DD and search this MB for "NDA" and "Paulson" and "warrants", and learn how Cytodyn raised cash through Paulson.
I give up! Have a nice day...
"Have any warrant holders signed an NDA with Cytodyn?"
They ALL have signed NDAs - that's HOW they got the warrants. It sounds like you're new to this board and are unfamiliar with the Paulson raises and how Cytodyn has raised their cash over the years, or how other companies raise cash.
With all due respect, that is the purpose of signing the NDA. It allows the company to share undisclosed information with an "accredited" investor so they can purchase shares directly from the company and not on the open market. There are NO uninformed parties involved in the transaction. It's legal and happens everyday. The trading of "insider" information is illegal and occurs when a person has inside information and has an advantage over the other party who is either buying or selling. CYDY has obtained most of their funding by selling shares directly to accredited investors who, after signing an NDA, were given nonpublic information (i.e. the reason for the NDA), and could then decide whether or not to purchase shares directly from the company. Under the NDA, the investors are NOT allowed to share that information or trade (i.e. buy/sell) on the open market until the nonpublic information is shared with the public via PR or conference call. This is how everyone who has warrants obtained their warrants.
"I have seen no mention of an NDA for warrant holders. I hope the hell there wasn't or we'll be looking at an SEC investigation and lawsuits."
Have you signed an NDA with Cytodyn? I have and I know what I'm talking about. Let's just agree to disagree.
Yes, tenduring a warrant is a "purchase", but you're buying them directly from the company, and therefore you are not purchasing the shares from a seller who doesn't have access to the "inside" information. You're purchasing the shares directly from the same company that shared the "inside" information with you under the NDA. This is how the warrant holders obtained their warrants. So with that said, why would it be illegal for the same warrant holders to sign another NDA and purchase additional shares from the company by tendering their warrants? There's no difference and it's the same process, and there are no uniformed parties that don't have access to the "inside" information. Also, Paulson can now tender their warrants under the current TO, and they're obviously under an NDA.
"I would challenge this as being insider information."
Again, how do you think the warrant holders obtained their warrants? They signed an NDA and purchased shares directly from the company, not on the open market. Signing another NDA and being given "inside information" so they can decide whether to tender their warrants is no different from what they previously did.
"Buying shares (or execute warrants) based on sensitive information would be legal?"
No, it's not illegal to be buy shares under an NDA because you're not buying them on the open market. How do you think they got the warrants in the first place?
Your post is just another example of how grossly misleading NP can be
as long they almost intentionally miss deadlines and funding goals
I found this article interesting that was posted on Yahoo yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/anyone-triple-negative-breast-cancer-174910764.html
I could be wrong, but during the 5/20 investor's call, I thought I heard NP say the potential deal with China wouldn't be until the 4th quarter this year. If so, I suspect it's because they want to see the TNBC results before making any commitments.
I just listened to today's video and NP clearly said that he expects to get 30-40m from this TO offer. Given this is the last day, it tells me they're probably well over the 30m mark already. And, knock on wood, I haven't seen a PR extending the deadline, which tells me they're happy with the results.
Again, I have a margin account at ET, and I have immediate access to the funds when I make the trade. I do it all of the time. I can sell shares today and have the funds transferred into my bank account or someone else's account the next day. I do not have to wait for the funds to clear when using a margin account, and a lot of investors use margin accounts. I've been doing this for over 10 years.
That's assuming they don't use eTrade. I have immediate access to my funds but it takes a day to transfer it to my checking account if I don't want to transfer funds directly from my eTrade account.
I would think that most people, if not all, who need to sell shares to generate funds for the TO, would have sold by EOD yesterday because it's my understanding the TO paperwork and $ needs to be delivered to CYDY by 5:30pm (EDT) today.
New Seeking Alpha article on CYDY:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4269836-cytodyn-uncovering-opportunity
Copy this and paste in in your post.
Fortuno $35 million.
Bored Lawyer $15M
sjacobs26 $26.4M
lorbas95 $22.3M
Z_Smith $20M
JPG77 $35m
I heard they were going to inject patients for TNBC "any day now".
The low holding of stocks is bad as he does not get much by increasing SP or doing BO.
The following was posted by my2centz on another board. Can one of the moderators sticky this post?
Science continues to amaze, now it would seem the risk associated with financing has been/is being resolved?
some quick updates from the CC:
1) Non-binding term sheet for direct investment in Cytodyn for 20 M, + addition 10 M for joint-venture in China with Chinese entity. (months away)
2) Mid-tier pharma company in US explore TNBC, GVHD and NASH potential partnerships (Q4 2019)
3) Big-pharma discussions regarding monotherapy HIV
4) Specific commercialization pharma company has provided term-sheet w/upfront cash, with milestones related to HIV and GVHD
5) Prognostic test for Prostate cancer, will be receiving term sheet very soon
6) Samsung participation in potential capital investment in Cytodyn
7) Discussion with various companies for potential licensing agreements.
**NO MORE DILUTION FINANCING**
**Tender offer with potential for 50 M**
**Cleaning up the balance sheet for bigger funds to join in**
But pre-TO they had a limited value if at all, esp b/c not being traded. maybe 3-4c max.
Thank you for sharing your rational for tendering your warrants, LM. I've added your post as a sticky to the top.
If there's going to be a PR on the 20th, I would expect it to follow the conference call or before the opening bell on the 21st, but who knows. I'm not really expecting one.
I could be wrong but I think Misiu also said their IR guy was with them, which adds more to the story as to what "could" be going on, but I don't want to read too much into this.