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.
Both of them? LOL just kidding
my shares came in one lump
I did buy some more. And I got filled in 100 share lots, very slowly.
My reading of the article picked up several actual misstatements of fact that reasonable diligence would have shown to be untrue. That is NOT protected as opinion, especially in light of the length of the article and the claims of research so extensive that it involved hiring a scientist to evaluate the drugs.
Also, the business of taking a picture through a door, of an office that obviously has someone in it because the lights are on, and then saying it's an empty shell -- that shows actual malice. If I were the lawyer suing this guy on behalf of CTIX, the first thing I would ask is: Did you try the door? And, "what time of day was this photo taken?"
I bet that the answers would be "no" and "lunch time"
Yes, I do think that a libelous article written for the purpose of aiding a short position is something that the SEC can and has taken legal action for in the past.
You're kidding, right? Check out the links to the Seeking Alpha libelous article.
Well, it's August, it's possible that the CEO really IS on vacation.
This is criminal stock manipulation and the SEC should go after this guy.
BioHedge, this is one of the few times I can remember disagreeing with you.
This is actually libelous, in the legal sense. The CEO needs to address the absolute utter lies here. Claiming that none of the drugs work is something that the ignorant who have not researched this will believe -- that's who did this panic selling. Claiming that the offices are an empty shell (when the lights were on and clearly were real offices) is a lie. Blaming Ehrlich for the problems of NNV* and saying that he is a criminal who loots companies -- that's libel.
If this is not addressed, people will think that the company can't refute this.
The best thing would be to send out a press release that CTIX is suing this guy and his company for libel. That would also force SA to remove the article.
I bet all stops have been run now.
I bought more too. 100 share lots on the fill, and took a long time to get the fill. however that was in the 2.1x's
The SEC should go after the author of that article. CTIX should sue for libel.
I disagree, I think the picture was taken at lunchtime. LOL
Lights would be off if it were before or after business hours.
You notice he didn't say he tried to walk into the office.
Sickening to think how much this guy made on shorting the stock. Probably covering slowly here.
CTIX should sue this guy for libel.
They're covering their shorts right now.
Even his first premise is wrong. If the office was empty, why were the lights on so that he could take pictures?
He probably went to the offices during lunch hour, and remember he said it was in August (vacation month for many people), shot a couple pictures through the door of an office WITH THE LIGHTS ON so someone must have been there -- and then leads off with this crap.
However he forgot to mention the depreciation of the office furniture.
No, they would sue for libel, not slander. Slander is when someone SAYS something demonstrably untrue, for malign purposes; libel is when someone WRITES something demonstrably untrue.
They really should sue this guy.
I just finished reading it. It's laughable -- to claim that a drug has to be effective against every possible infection to be worthwhile. Tell that to someone who's going to lose a leg because of a horrible infection, that they shouldn't use Brilacidin because it doesn't cure every possible infection, just the one he has.
And to say that none of the drugs work because some "biochemist" says they don't work -- I guess the FDA must not have any biochemists who can look at clinical trial data and decide whether to give a go-ahead to a clinical trial.
They also invoke the spectre of NNV* and blame Ehrlich for that company's disaster.
I didn't read the article closely enough, but I suspect that there are grounds for a libel suit. You note that this guy again invokes the discredited hit piece on Menon which was removed from that shoppers' newspapers web archive.
Is there a new hit piece now? If so can you post a link?
Not true, your post says "no one is buying (literally) these stories and stock"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115987476
Sorry, you can't claim to have written something other than what you did write, when it is there for all to see.
EDIT: also, when you say that literally no one is buying the stock, and then say that you want to disregard my buying, just because -- well I guess just because it proves you are wrong -- sorry, you can't do that either.
haha F1ash thanks for the correction. How many CEO's would lend 2 million bucks to a company to save it, huh?
haha 9000 share lot comes in, listed next to the 100 share lots. Hilarious.
BEWARE, level2 shows a whole bunch of 100 share lots listed on both the buy and sell sides.
Those 100 share lots are market makers trying to manipulate the price. We've seen that for months on CTIX.
Ask yourself, with all the multi-thousand share lots we've seen, are there genuinely people who bought, for example, 100 shares at .75 (75 bucks plus commission) who now want to sell for 1.35 (135 bucks plus commission)? Right now I see 33 100 share lots listed.
I call BS.
A stop order is visible on order books no matter what kind of account it's in. It will be listed in street name -- for instance, etrade has a stop in at 1.10 for xxxx shares -- but who cares? The market maker doesn't, they'll swoop in and grab your shares.
Look at yesterday's range, 1.10 to about 1.54. That 1.10 was touched briefly -- probably just long enough to hit someone's stops.
Yeah, I thought that was nuts the first time someone told me about it.
Then it happened to me.
A company has to have a two-year operating history to be listed on NASDAQ. Share price doesn't matter.
I like your post, which can be boiled down to:
"Okay so there's good news here, but let's ignore it and focus on complaints that another trial is still ongoing so there aren't results yet (because things take time in the real world)."
The reason I like your post is that it tells us exactly how you feel about this stock.
Gee, I wonder if a guy who owns 30 million shares would help Dr. Menon find a new CEO as a successor if he got sick -- or if he'd just decide to let the company go out of business. [/sarcasm]
You are incorrect that "literally no one is buying." I have been buying and so have friends. We are not no one.
How can you presume to know whether people are buying or not, anyway? Are you telling us that you are a market maker with access to the order books and can see that all the trades are sells? (even though the stock ended UP yesterday -- trying to get my head around how "literally no one is buying" if the stock goes up.)
Loose Lips, I agree. But perhaps for the benefit of newbies, it would be useful to use the [/sarcasm] to make sure that people understand your (very appropriate) sarcasm.
I don't think that it's just "a hope" that the share price will rise on news.
Here is a company with 3 drugs, in 4 different areas of medicine (Brilacidin as an antibiotic, and Brilacidin-OM are two different uses for the same underlying drug) -- would an "efficient market" price it here? No.
It defies logic to think that positive news on any one of the drug trials would NOT result in an enormous reevaluing of this stock to the upside.
The chance of all 4 of these trials failing, given the success so far, seems small.
I am confident of my very large investment in this stock -- though it does annoy me that the games being played with it have depressed it to this absurd level.
By no means is it speculation that the CEO saved the company with a loan. There was no other financing available.
As far as your saying you want an "experienced CEO" -- someone who has led this company from 0.10 a share, to its current completely undervalued price of 2.40ish, bought the PolyMedix intellectual property for $5 million, and has gotten 3 drugs into 4 human trials -- by my estimation, that is a CEO who IS experienced, and who has done a great job.
I've said I'd like to see a professional PR firm or person hired -- but that doesn't mean I have lost confidence in Mr. Ehrlich's ability to continue making money for me. And to bring these drug trials to fruitions, offering hope to many, many suffering people.
The CEO doesn't reply to my emails. I don't think he's stupid enough to give proprietary information to anyone.
The constant calls for the resignation of the guy who saved the company by lending it a million bucks when it was about to got bankrupt -- the guy who took it from a 10 cent stock on the verge of bankruptcy, to a company with at least 4 clinical trials -- well….
that tells me what a certain segment would like to happen.
Who profits? Who profits from a lower share price and a different CEO?
Let's just speculate:
Short sellers, including traders' gangs, and hedge funds
A fund trying to accumulate at a lower price
A big pharma trying to make a deal with a lowball offer
Those are a few candidates. I myself am happy with the huge gains I've had, but unhappy with the ridiculous stock price that a stock commands when it has 4 human trials involving 3 drugs in totally different areas of medicine.
I do not blame the CEO for this crazy share price, especially when I see 1000 share trades filled with 10 100 share blocks. I think CEO need to hire a PR firm or a full-time PR person -- but I do NOT attribute this share price to the CEO. I attribute it to people who want this share price to be low, for whatever reason.
And he DID update us about the meeting, as he said. You just verified that the CEO did exactly as promised, and did not promise more.
Please refer back to the posts talking about this. I believe Rdunn88 was the one who nailed it down, if you have the capability to search posts.
Wrong. He did NOT promise a date for the corporate update, as has been amply demonstrated here by several posters. How do you know whether or when there will be one?
Whenever someone says "everyone has lost trust" or "people do this... or people do that" -- really? Can anyone say what is in every investor or trader's mind? Can we harness that technology, because I think that a technology that harnesses psychic powers to read the minds of hundreds or thousands of people would be invaluable.
When someone makes those kinds of broad generalizations I am immediately disbelieving -- because it's not possible to know what other people's motivations are in trading.
noretreat that is one of the funniest posts ever.
What about his blunder in buying PolyMedix? What about his blunder in getting 3 different drugs into human trials?
Baloney.
It is incorrect to state that "nobody trusts" the CEO.
Absolutely wrong.
Now that's just silly. It's not the hot weather in the east, it's the forest fires in the west! LOL
I wish! There genuinely needs to be a recognized emoticon for sarcasm.