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.
Do we have anyone on this board who happened to have seen/listened to LL's presentation today? I felt extremely confident when I watched the UAB presentation, by seeing how she was smiling from ear to ear when talking about DCVax. She stated at that time that she was still blinded, so maybe if she is currently unblinded, it would show in the way she spoke about it for this presentation.
Based on your experience, do you think, what have been suggested by other posters here, that there's no advantage in regard to the FDA of changing the endpoints on clinicaltrials, but rather a chance it might frustrate the process when discussions with FDA has to take place.
In the NT 10-Q they are referring to events taken place after the 3Q, which have an effect on accounting for 3Q. I hate to speculate, but it could be a deal made during Q3 that have an event happening after Q3, but before release of 10-Q (as otherwise it would not mean anything). If DL (happened 10/5, which is after Q3 but before 10-Q filing) triggered something that they had to mention in the 10-Q that could be the reason. TLD would not have happened had they filed on time, so I highly doubt the 10-Q is delayed due to any TLD related matter.
DL could have been the vesting event, doesn't have to be TLD, as that has yet to happen this quarter.
I somewhat agree on your points. I do see them trying to line up all the information so the can tell 'their story' in a continuing narrative. I think in the long run this is what can move the SP the highest. I sure hope this is what's going on. If this pans out, great. If not, they will have waisted some time with regard to each of those issues, which otherwise could have move the SP up during these past weeks.
Agree. People try to spin the words of DI every time he is involved in any correspondence.
You didn't miss a thing. No actual information regarding the warrants was discovered today. A few rumors and second hand info that they were negotiating a possible extension.
A lot of discussion regarding company being blinded and unblinded and what influence that have on the possible extension.
To be continued in the morning.
Yes, if they are unblinded, before entering into extending the warrants, the news is at worst borderline positive.
If they are unblinded, then it says that they understand that because they have the information, it would likely be illegal for them to get any compensation for the extension. It still will be an issue as to what strike price they would be able to offer on the additional warrants, while protecting the rest of the shareholders against any loss of value. It is literally a very difficult situation they are in with regard to convincing the non insider warrant holders to extend and at the same time not revealing that the results of the trial is positive (It will clearly be illegal to get them to extend the warrants of the trial failed and they knew it.) I understand why they feel the need to do the extension at this time, but it is like walking through a minefield if they are unblinded.
Thanks for sharing your correspondence 10B. That seems like a perfect reply from DI unlike some of the others that have been reported here. It does tend to hint that they are currently unblinded, which is good to know. I am very curious to see the developments over the next week or so. By this time next Tuesday, we should have a much better grasp on where things stand. We just need to be patient and use this time to potentially add to our portfolios.
Agree, I was expecting it too as we got closer and they were running out of time to create a narrative with PR's. Just worried a little if they are currently unblinded, as it would be walking on eggshells getting it done. I think the biggest flaw that management have exhibited during the time I have been invested, which is a short time frame, is that they underestimated the time for analysis of locked data by the statisticians. Things like that happens. I am not worried about the lack of information from company as they are working for the long term future and not the short term SP. Always a pleasure getting your input.
I know that you will disagree with me, but it doesn't matter if the data is good or bad, what matters is that they have the information. It would be a disadvantage to all the other shareholders (Loss of value) if the company gave anything in return in exchange for the extension, while having information that the news was positive.
I seem to remember that Thermoo said the strike price on the additional warrants was $1.50 or thereabouts. That extension was clearly done at a time they were blinded, so no one had a significant advantage. If they are currently unblinded, Company will have a huge advantage in the negotiations with non insider warrant holders. Just imagine you knew Ajax had won the match 3-1 but the person you are making a bet with has no clue the match is already over.
I am assuming you meant to say they were blinded.
Yeah, I doubt they have been in serious discussions if they extend the warrants.
I think one way to extend the warrants would be to negotiate a strike price based on the average of the five trading days following release of TLD and then announce TLD before announcing the 8-k extension, but having the agreement to extend signed before the release of TLD. I just don't know how they could possible negotiate that without revealing that TLD is coming out in short time and that TLD is positive. I guess they could have the warrant holders they want to extend sign some form of an NDA, but how likely that would be to hold up in court, should the warrant holders leak any information prior to the release of TLD, I would not dare to guess.
You are right Sojo, but he is also right in that once we get TLD, there will be a period of time where TA's will be worthless in regard to predictions.
Agree 100%
So you also think that if they do an extension, they are likely still blinded?
Agree with the short term SP thoughts. My question is how would they prevent the public to know that they are sitting on successful results if the strike price is $5 on the added warrants. Wouldn't that scream positive TLD? Shouldn't that be something they would need to communicate?
Loss of value to the company, self dealing etc. I will assure you that these law firms will come up with anything hoping it would stick. Even if unsuccessful, it would cause way more damage to the company than if they just let the warrants expire. Most of the law firms who are involved with these practices have zero empathy and will attack ruthlessly. You can look at a company like Genius (GNUS) and see how aggressive they are when they smell just a little blood.
I agree. It seems like what was divulged to Senti is highly inappropriate. For a company who are at this stage, it is careless to say the things that DI is 'ALLEGED' to have said.
No. They could argue that in the myriad of Shareholder derivative suits that would be filed, but not very likely to succeed on those merits.
I understand. If they are offered something, it would likely mean that company is still blinded. If they are not offered anything, I am curious to see how many of them will agree to the extension. They already lost a significant amount of them during the last extension, who didn't agree with the price they were offered. The only negative is if it becomes a clear signal that company is still blinded, as that would allow the wolves to run around in the chicken coop unguarded for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, it would allow for some of us to keep adding shares at these low levels for a period of time.
Thanks Senti, that makes me feel with great certainty that the company is still blinded.
I know that if she got additional warrants for extending her current warrants while being unblinded, that would be self dealing. That was all I was referring to,
Why would that be a problem seen from NWBO perspective?
How do you get an existing warrant holder to agree to a higher price for the additional warrants he/she will receive, without sharing information that would support such a higher strike price? And once the 8-k comes out, there would/should be information about the strike price, which would be a sign to the public that the trial is positive.
Thanks Gus, that is exactly what I have been saying and what my experience has lead me to believe. I just don't see a scenario where they can 'pay' additional shares for an extension of the warrants if they are unblinded. I hope that your statement is based on your experience and based in facts as that is my viewpoint.
Quick question.
So if they extend the warrants while being unblinded, how do they value the additional warrants that they likely will have to pay the non-insider warrant holders? If they use the current SP, they will be providing a windfall (Though unbeknownst to the warrant holders, unless done with a wink wink) to those warrant holders and a disservice to the company. The company executing those additional shares at a price they will or should have known is way below their actual value would be a detriment to the company and open them up for potential lawsuits. I am just spit balling here, because as I mentioned before, I just can't find a scenario where they are able to extend the warrants if they are unblinded.
But might not be perceived well by the FDA when the approval process starts. That's obviously just my speculation WRT why they haven't updated clinicaltrials.com.
My only issue is that I just don't see any scenario where they can extend the warrants if they are unblinded. If any of you have access to an attorney with experience in shareholder derivative suits, please ask that person if he can come up with a scenario where this is possible.
As LP is one of the warrant holders, that would clearly be self dealing.
I agree that it makes no sense to extend, only to release TLD just before the deadline. I just think that they would be handcuffed if they are unblinded. My statements have been that if they are still blinded, they should 100% extend the warrants. Having, like Anders said, 4-6 weeks of being able to create their own story is a huge advantage. My concern is just that in an unblinded situation, that could be impossible.
Let's just see what happens and take it one step at the time.
My apologies if you find my inclusion of your name in my post patronizing. I was just trying to communicate that I was empathetic to your plight. I am actually respectful of your commitment to this company by being so heavily invested. I wish I was able to go all in on this as I think it is a no brainer with the potential there is.
First of all, I doubt any posts that are not backed up by factual information, will have much influence on the SP. I never accused anyone of trying to lower the SP, only to buy more shares. I simply said that I hoped that people on this board used the dip to add to their positions.
As for the 'Holland' comment, I was referring to you maybe not quite understanding the US legal system which is based on precedence and common law and not like in Europe, where it is a codified civil law system. I was unsure if you used your local knowledge in talking about the relevance of non public inside information relating to a company's restrictions on financial matters. I was born in Denmark, but have lived in the US since my late teens, so it was not in any way meant as a derogatory remark on your beautiful country or the people from your country, simply just that we have different legal systems and that most law will not be found in statutes or regulations. I do now remember you citing a legal case before, so you are likely aware of this. I try not to get personal and I am sorry if you took it that way.
It would be if LP knew the trial results. The question would be: would the warrant holders agree to this extension if they were in possession of the sensitive information that LP had? Also, it would be a disservice to all investors if she extended the warrants and gave out additional warrants at let's say $1.50, knowing the trial was successful and that the value likely was way more than what the warrant holders would pay for the new warrants.
Whether good or bad news, they are prevented from acting on it if it is non public information. Not sure how hard that is to understand. They can sit on the information, but not act on it. That's the same whether good or bad news. If they act on any non-public information, it will be actionable in a shareholder derivative suit, regardless of whether it is in the regulations or not.