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.
This is normal. As part of the agreement Marker needed to register the shares being sold to LPC. It doesn't mean they will immediately sell anything. This is not a defense of LPC but the registration doesn't mean anything. Shares sold in this manner are generally registered for resale.
It is entirely going to depend on how Marker manages this deal. I’ve said previously that they have cash out to August of next year and are going to try to get the lymphoma trial up and running as soon as possible with the intent of having the first data readout by the end of next year. I got the feeling that they expect that trial to bring some attention and they would most likely do a larger offering upon that data release should the share price increase enough. The announcement of the lymphoma IND acceptance brought in a very large amount of volume so they could be on the right track here. If that is indeed the plan, then they need cash from August to the end of the year totaling around $10M-$15M. They now have access to that with this deal and don’t need to rush a secondary offering.
That being said, they were clearly not negotiating from a position of power here. The Lincoln Park Capital (LPC) deal is very similar to the deal they had with Aspire (PR, 8k) which expired in September of this year. That one was for $30M over a 30-month period. For what it’s worth they only took $6.2M from it. They issued Aspire commitment shares totaling ~.7% of outstanding shares at the time to get the deal in place. The LPC deal (PR, 8k) is for $25M over a 24-month period. They issued LPC commitment shares totaling ~2% of outstanding shares. So, the LPC deal is for less money, a shorter term, and they had to give up more than double the amount of ownership they gave to Aspire just to get the deal in place.
LPC does A LOT of these types of deals, and I can’t say I would hold them in high regard. They commit to purchasing up to a set amount and for that commitment are granted free shares. The free shares themselves aren’t the issue as they clearly should get something for entering such a deal where they have no control over when or at what price they will need to buy. The issue is what they do with the shares after purchase. Best case scenario they hang onto them and become a long-term holder. Marker tried to address this in the PR in stating that they “entered into a Common Stock Purchase… with Lincoln Park Capital Fund, a Chicago-based institutional investor and long-term Marker shareholder.” I have found no filing to indicate LPC holds, or has held, any shares of MRKR. HERE is the list of their filings from the past 5 years. So, they either don’t meet requirements that would make them file with the SEC, or they are not a long-term holder of MRKR. I do hope it’s the first one. The companies entering these deals with LPC rarely fare well. I don’t know much about those companies but the only thing I would be comfortable assuming is that the companies entering these deals with LPC are already hurting and this is just a last resort deal. LPC are a bunch of vultures, circling, waiting to pick over the rotting corpses of failing companies. Some turn things around but a lot of them continue to flounder. Knowing what I know about Marker I believe things will turn out differently for them but I would have rather they not associated themselves with LPC.
In any event, the worst-case scenario, since they are purchasing the shares at a discount, they immediately dump them. They take a very small profit, but they aren’t risking anything themselves. This causes downward pressure on the share price depending on how many shares they have and how quick they try to unload them. Ultimately this wouldn’t be much different from the company just tapping their ATM. Volume has been fairly anemic though so hopefully they will have a hard time unloading.
Like I first said, this really just depends on how the company manages the deal. The funds are secured, and they don’t need any until August at the latest. This just assures them that they will be able to get the funds when needed without needing to do a large secondary offering. It doesn’t even mean they will need to access funds under this deal. If share price appreciates enough, they will probably still do an offering without fully exercising this deal. Just like how they did an offering early last year while leaving $24M untouched on the Aspire deal.
Ultimately the deal means nothing if they don’t produce data. We’re headed for a reverse split that they will need news to counteract the negative effects of and I just don’t know that they have it. Back in the beginning of the year when they delayed the AML trial, I said they will be backing themselves into a corner that will cause short term pain. Well, here we are. This funding deal will definitely provide them with flexibility but it’s not a deal I would want to have to fall back on with how things are currently going for the company.
HERE is the most recent corporate presentation and HERE is a clinical program update they did. Both of these were posted to the company's website on February 16th, 2022. They should give you a good idea of what the company has been up to.
As for the timeline for completing the PII AML trial we are kind of left to speculate a bit. The active group can feasibly be done, depending on how quick enrollment goes, by the end of next year. Obviously this gets pushed out if enrollment lags. The adjuvant group will take a bit longer as those patients need to be monitored longer and the company has not given much info on a timeline here. This is the larger group of the trial so enrollment will take a bit longer.
Looks like this is literally the first patient treated in their PI study. They are a long way off. Hopefully MRKR gets a CR in this next data set.
They can claim whatever they want. Do they have proof is the question. After all the lawsuits brought against NWBO I guess they figured it was their turn sue someone. Regardless nothing probably comes of this. If you really want to see a horribly managed company and an actual garbage CEO look no further than NWBO. Only took them 20 years to finally finish their PIII.
The only major change is that I am currently not convinced the AML data will be enough to get us over the $1 mark by February. All the other news I listed in that last post coming by year's end came and went without any price movement. At this point I think it will take non-dilutive funding to make that happen. Lymphoma trial initiation might help as well but I am fully preparing for a reverse split. The rest of that post is still my opinion now especially since I was told that the company is shooting to have initial lymphoma data by end of next year. That might even make me a little more optimistic.
I'm gonna tangent for a bit but will get back on track. I fully believe based on the timeline of events detailed in the merger filing (HERE) that Peter was specifically brought into Tapimmune to facilitate a merger. He took over as CEO in September of 2017 and eight months later the merger was announced. Peter had a prior business relationship with Ali Behbahani and it was Behbahni who introduced Peter to John Wilson. That introduction led to Peter being recommended as a candidate for ViraCyte's CEO position. Ultimately, after meeting with Ann Leen, Juan Vera, and John Wilson, Peter turned down ViraCyte's offer to become CEO but agreed to help ViraCyte by providing advice on strategy and financing. He offered to do this at no cost but ViraCyte did ultimately issue him shares of the company for his assistance. This all happened early 2017 prior to him joining Tapimmune in September of the same year. One month after joining Tapimmune Peter, John Wilson, and Ali Behbahni were in discussions regarding a merger of Tapimmune and Marker. Obviously that ended up happening and here we are.
So, in response to your statement:
Obviously anything can happen but dosing the first 6 patients using the new manufacturing process isn't a milestone because they expect amazing results, its a milestone because they finally got the trial back up and running after having to pause it to make those manufacturing improvements. If the manufacturing improvements don't show improved results then they just wasted a bunch of time. The verdict is still out on those improvements so hopefully they pay off. This is the third iteration of the therapy. The BCM process shows one CR (did not test for MRD), the improved process showed no CRs but did turn two patients MRD-, and the results are still pending on the improvement over the improved process. Like I said previously, I have a feeling the market is wanting at least one CR and is completely writing off the MRD data. At this point I am more interested in the MRD data but hopefully we see at least one CR so the company can get that monkey off it's back.
I would agree that if those results are achieved then the resulting SP increase would be well over $1 and more than likely maintained at least long enough to avoid the RS. However, that is a very optimistic outlook. Especially considering the results we have seen thus far. There has been nothing to indicate future results will be that good. 4 CRs total out of the 30 patient group would almost be enough to warrant approval in an active setting with this patient population. Doubtful we see 4 out of the next six when the last 11 have yielded 0.
The best chance for a partnership is most likely the pancreatic trial. The reason they are doing another PI is specifically to get enough data points to attract a partner to run a larger PII. They clearly chose to go alone on the AML front and we'll see how the lymphoma trial goes. If data from that mirrors the PI I would expect some BP company might show some interest.
I wouldn't expect any major partnership until more data comes out from these trials.
I can't pretend to know how the market is going to react to the data. I know how it has reacted to the previous data. I know what I want to see with the next data but I don't know what the market wants to see. I do believe that the market, and most retail investors, are hoping for too much. It really depends on what your definition of robust is. If it's 6 CRs out of the 6 patients then yes, that should be more than enough to send the SP way higher. That's also probably not likely. To date in the PII we have not seen a CR. If we assume that's what the market wants then 1 CR may be enough to move the price higher. Over $1? I'm not convinced. If it does move over $1 then it needs to maintain. To date I haven't seen enough to believe any SP increase will be maintained. My hope is that changes with an actual inflow of data and the new trial initiations.
The MRD data will be a big driver here in the active setting. If they can continue to turn patients MRD- then they should have a path forward for approval regardless of how many CRs we ultimately end up seeing in frank relapse patients. The market seems to either be ignoring the MRD data or it just isn't a large enough sample size yet.
I'm not arguing that the RS is a good concept. It's trash. Whether done at 1:3 or 1:12 the result will be the same and it won't be good in the short term. Mid to long term I fully believe MRKR will have good data that will increase the SP to a point the ratio won't matter. Even if they need to go the full 1:12. It's not like they are going to RS and then have two more years to data. They'll RS in February and probably have more AML data mid year and potentially lymphoma data by the end of the year. I'm still pissed that this RS is needing to happen in the first place but the timing could have been a lot worse.
I don't think the ratio will matter. The approval is for a range between 1:3 and 1:12. Whether its effected at the low end or the high end the result will be the same.
It certainly isn't looking likely. We really need to see at least one CR in this next data set. At the very least more MRD patients turning MRD-. Even if we do though I just don't know that it will be enough to bring SP over $1. Aside from that data the only other things I can see helping out the SP are the initiation of the lymphoma trial and non-dilutive funding.
If they plan on having a lymphoma readout by the end of next year that trial needs to start ASAP. The early lymphoma data was the best of all indications tested in the BCM trials so it's not surprising that this trial would bring some excitement. The IND acceptance brought huge volume of almost 100M over 3 days. I have to assume more trial progress will bring in more volume. Will the SP hold is the big question.
I still fully expect them to dilute us all to hell but the company has given some indication they think they can access some non dilutive funding. If that really is a possibility then now is the time to do whatever it takes to make it happen. If they can get more funding without diluting shareholders and it's enough to fund the company past the end of next year then I do believe that would be enough to bring the SP over $1. I wouldn't hold out much hope for this though.
January 31st. Then the SP needs to close above $1 everyday until February 13th.
That's not a legitimate source. I want the actual regulation you are pointing to. If we are going to use that article then I'll point to this, "The legal definition of a penny stock is more specific. A penny stock is any security that isn't a National Market System (NMS) stock, registered to trade on a national securities exchange, and with a bid price of at least $4 per share." So by that definition MRKR isn't a penny stock as legally defined. This article is specifically speaking to stocks that trade OTC. Not exchange listed "penny stocks."
There is no rule stating institutions cannot buy penny stocks. The only people that say that are people on the message boards trying to make themselves feel better about reverse splits. As there are no rules stating institutions cannot buy penny stocks there are no rules dictating that stocks must be liquidated if they fall below a certain price. I have not seen any legitimate source for this common misconception. If you have one please provide it.
Institutions aren't prohibited from holding penny stocks so they won't be forced to sell. If they choose to not hold penny stocks then that's on them but I can guarantee they are looking at more than just the share price of a company when they choose to invest in it.
Probably not with this volume. This is most likely the people thinking they could buy on news yesterday and sell on a pop that never came because the news wasn't really news.
Until we see the trial design there is no way to know what they are planning. The BCM study was done in combination w/ chemotherapy. HERE is the poster presented at AACR and HERE is the PowerPoint from the investor presentation they gave.
Literally none of this matters. AlloVir and Marker went their separate directions. Period. They won't be combining forces anytime soon. Especially since AlloVir is part of Elevate Bio. The CEO of AlloVir is also the CFO and co-founder of Elevate. If you insist on speculating, Marker has a better shot at working out a deal with Elevate than AlloVir. And that is also probably not going to happen because part of Elevate's "platform" is providing a manufacturing facility that all of their portfolio companies have access to. Since this is something Marker does not need a deal between the two is probably a long shot.
Partnerships don't materialize solely over the need for cash. Even so, AlloVir's cash position isn't enough to be facilitating many partnerships seeing as they burn ~$40M - $45M per quarter.
AlloVir does not make sense as a partner. Their focus is on viral infections, not cancer. If there were significant synergies the founders would have kept the companies together instead of splitting them up.
AlloVir has nothing to provide Marker that Marker does not already have.
There isn't. The two companies are not sharing information as they are working on two completely different programs. No sense in speculating on this.
AlloVir was the first to create an OTS therapy. If I remember correctly they had this established prior to taking AlloVir public. For their purposes it was easier to do in an infectious disease setting. Dr. Vera is the one who ran with the idea at MRKR to make it work in a cancer setting. As co founder of both companies he clearly had a hand in creating the OTS therapy for AlloVir as well.
AlloVir has their own facility. At this point they are two separate companies and not worth comparing.
lol. I won't forget.
They have plenty of upcoming milestones and nothing has been disappearing. They just seem to be taking their sweet time with everything. The AML trial delay to adjust the manufacturing process caused them a huge short-term problem as I, and others, said from the initial announcement. If the process is indeed better and does what they say it can do, then the delay should be well worth it. If results do not improve, then it was a waste of a year. This remains to be seen and I will be reserving judgement for when we see the initial adjuvant AML and/or lymphoma data.
I usually do an end of year post looking at what should be coming in the next year. We're close enough that I'll just list the upcoming milestones and my thoughts on each now and if anything else comes up between now and the end of the year I'll adjust it then.
AML PII Data: We should get the next set by year's end. This will be the first data released using the new manufacturing process. I believe it is going to be on 6 patients so it’s still an overall small sample size. Regardless, I think people need to lower their expectations on this data. The active AML setting has been very hard to treat. The patients in the PI trial failed anywhere between 4 and 10 prior lines of treatment. As of right now the data is as follows:
PI: 8 patients treated, 1PR & 1CR (The PR patient saw enough of a reduction to allow a second cell transplant)
PII: 11 frank relapse patients treated, 0CR
2 MRD+ patients treated, 2 CR MRD-
It would be nice to see a CR or two in frank relapse, but the active portion of the AML trial is going to come down to turning MRD+ Patients MRD-. Since MRD+ patients are almost always guaranteed to relapse turning them MRD- is a big deal. The FDA gave them the $2M grant primarily because of the early MRD data. Added to the $13M from CPRIT this trial is about 60% funded via grants.
New Lymphoma PI: The FDA cleared their IND for the new lymphoma trial back in August. (https://ir.markertherapeutics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/marker-therapeutics-announces-fda-clearance-ind-mt-601-six) is the PR. The BCM PI included patients with both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas in both active and adjuvant settings. The Marker sponsored PI will specifically focus on relapse/refractory (r/r) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Specifically, those who have failed or are ineligible to receive anti-CD19 CAR-T treatment. Since they are focusing on r/r NHL I’m assuming they are going to forgo an adjuvant arm of this trial, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually add one in. The BCM data and summary for just the r/r NHL patients is below:
8 patients treated, 4 CR
Of the 4 patients treated that did not achieve CR 2 of them saw progressive disease and 2 of them moved onto other therapies while in stable disease. 3 of the 4 CRs were achieved after a length of time in stable disease longer than these.
2 patients experienced prior to starting another line of therapy. If they had stayed in the trial, it’s possible they could have seen CR at some point.
Not specific to just the r/r NHL patients above but of the CRs seen in the BCM trial, per Dr. Koneru and quoted in the above reference PR, “none of the patients who developed a CR in the TACTAL [BCM] study relapsed during the follow up period, and several patients have been in CR for over five years at their last follow-up. This contrasts strongly with the experience of CD-19 CAR-Ts, where up to 40% of patients are expected to relapse within 12 months of developing a complete response.”
The lymphoma data was by far the best data that initially came out of BCM. At the time of the merger the clinical pathway was not there for them to initiate this trial due to the recent approvals of Yescarta and Kymriah. Now that there is a path forward, they are imitating the new trial only this time with a better product. When the IND was accepted, we saw volume of ~93M over the course of three days. ~75M of it was in one day. Share price doubled. Obviously, the volume and share price significantly declined but that kind of volume doesn’t happen if there is absolutely no interest. The company is trying to get this trial up and running to have a data readout by the end of next year. They are looking to dose the first patient in Q1. If results can just mirror the BCM results, we’ll be in good shape.
New Pancreatic PI: I’m not sure if the IND has been filed yet for this but if it hasn’t been it will be shortly. They plan to initiate a company sponsored PI next year. Overview of the BCM data is below:
13 patients treated, 4 ORs
1 CR & 3PR. The CR was observed well after a CR would have been seen from chemo alone.
6 patients with stable disease, 2 of which saw reversal of tumor growth
9 of the 13 patients exceeded historical control of overall survival
The plan here, from what I was told, is to gain enough data to lure a partner for a larger PII trial. The data currently available on the 13 patients is not a large enough sample size for most bigger biotech companies to agree to a partnership. Per Dr. Koneru the number they look for when partnering with smaller biotech companies is 25. At least that was Eli Lilly’s number while she was there. This trial has potential and proves very interesting due to how difficult pancreatic cancer is to treat but it will take a back seat to the AML and lymphoma trials.
Off the Shelf (OTS) Therapies: They are planning an OTS trial in AML for next year. I believe it will just be an added arm to the current AML trial. Per their pipeline it looks like they also plan on initiating one in lymphoma and ovarian at some point but the only one discussed so far has been AML. If this works out it will be a big deal as the therapy won’t need to be manufactured prior to a patient being treated. I did just spend the first paragraph of this post annoyed with the delay in the AML trial due to the manufacturing improvements, but they really are astounding when you think about it. Even if the delay comes with some short-term pain for shareholders. The BCM process took 36 days. The improved Marker process brought that time down to 20 days and then with more fine tuning they got it down to 9 days. All of this while also improving on the quality of the final product. That’s where we are now. With the OTS program the time to match a patient, ship the product, and dose the patient is just less than 3 days. That’s nuts. For comparison Yescarta takes 2-3 weeks to manufacture. That doesn’t account for the time it takes to ship the blood cells to the manufacturing facility and then ship the final product back. Kymriah takes 3-4 weeks from the time the cells are received at their manufacturing facility to the time they ship the final product back. Being able to treat patients in less than 3 days is insane. Also, the scalability of this is crazy where just one donor can potentially provide product for 100+ patients. I am personally very interested in how this pans out.
I guess we can’t talk about the good without talking about the bad. The aforementioned short-term pain, other than the depressed share price over the past year, is more than likely going to come by way of some pretty heavy dilution. By delaying the trial, they pushed the data further out. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the upcoming data will be enough to move the needle on the share price. I think the data will be respectable, but I also think people are expecting too much from the frank relapse AML patients. IMHO.
They have cash out to August of next year. The company was looking into other financing options so it will be interesting if they can come up with some non-dilutive funding. At least to push their runway long enough to get a lymphoma readout. They probably need at least $10M - $15M extra to get them to the end of 2023. I’m not holding my breath on this though. The reality is that they will ultimately need to raise funds. How much, when, and at what price are the questions. I don’t expect them to be able to avoid the reverse split so hopefully they figure out how to limit the downside effects should it happen. The way not to do it is to R/S and immediately raise funds. Unfortunately, they do look to be headed in that direction.
As of now nothing has changed fundamentally with the company. If you believed in the science in the beginning, there is nothing that should change your mind right now. I’ll be here until the data tells me I should run.
They did have three locations. The two you mentioned and then their headquarters were at 3200 Southwest Freeway. Since the termination of that lease they have moved their headquarters to the GMP facility which had office space in it. I would imagine with the reduction in administrative staff it no longer made sense to have the separate location as their headquarters.
In the big picture I don't think that it means much other than the saved expenses.
Unfortunately its pretty normal. Its not just Marker that does it either. I don't know if its by design or just the fact that no one other than the analysts care to ask questions. I've never tried to ask a question on a conference call. I personally don't blame any company that doesn't take random questions during their conference calls as I'm sure 90% of retail shareholders "questions" are just going to be people complaining about the share price rather than asking a legitimate question about company progress.
I think they usually do conference calls a year. I believe they have only done one this year so I would assume, and hope, they do one this quarter. Like always though the Q&A, if they do it, will be the few analysts on the call lobbing softballs to management.
It's possible. More times than not I believe they announce quarterly results mid month though. I'd expect the 14th or 15th but that's just my guess. It doesn't really matter when they do it.
It's pretty rare a reverse split works out well for shareholders. Reason being is that a lot of the time it's done to maintain listing requirements under threat of being delisted from an exchange. The ones that do end up working out are usually larger companies that are actually profitable. Citigroup, Motorola, & AIG all when through reverse splits that worked out well. Obviously you can see the difference between them and Marker, or any other company struggling to stay listed on a national exchange.
HERE is a study on the history of reverse stock splits. It's a little dated but the point remains the same. From the abstract, "These stocks record statistically significant negative abnormal returns over the three-year period following the ex-split month."
He was lucky to have some preferred shares of iBio. Without those he would have lost damn near his entire investment.
HERE is a full list of Eastern Capital's SEC filings. The CDMO filing showing his reduced position is the one filed 1/26/2021. There is no filing that shows what price. Filing requirements for form 13G/A sate that the amendment must be filed within 10 days of any month-end where the holder's ownership increases or decreases by 5% or more. Based on this I would have to assume he sold those shares in January of 2021 prior to the filing date. That would mean the shares were sold somewhere between $11.50 - $14.80.
Dart definitely has resources bet he is usually a passive investor when it comes to Biotech. He is more interested in his business ventures down in the Cayman Islands. He will not be shaking anything up here at Marker.
If anyone is going to do any shaking up of the Marker it's going to be NEA or Aisling and I highly doubt they will be pushing for any moves right now.
He sold ~3.8M shares of CDMO in early 2021. Potentially still holds ~500K. This is completely irrelevant to Marker though. Dart is also completely irrelevant. He's made a fair amount of poor investments but he's also made some good ones. You can't cherry pick his bad trades and try to make assumptions based off of them. We'll probably never know if he still owns his Marker position as he is no longer required to disclose but it definitely doesn't matter because he isn't a major holder anymore.
PolyStart is still Marker's. They are apparently looking for applications that make sense with their current product lineup. There still might be value there but I would tamper expectations. Prior company management hyped it way up when it was a long way from being a viable revenue source for the company.
It's not really a financial maneuver. They weren't doing anything with the peptide vaccines so there was no major cost associated with holding the licenses. This was just a long time coming as they stopped progressing the vaccines when they failed trials back at the beginning of the merger. The only open trials were the Mayo sponsored ones which Marker had no input or control over. Makes sense to have the licenses go back to Mayo so they can deal with them as there was going to be no further investment from Marker.
Below is a list of the board of directors prior to the merger and the number of shares they owned as of the closing of the merger:
Sherry Grisewood: 19,582 shares & 12,500
David Laskow-Pooley : 18,283 shares & 12,500 options exercisable at $2.52 expiring on 3/12/2025
Mark Reddish: 36,110 shares & 12,875 options
Frederick Wasserman : 18,283 shares & 12,500 options
Joshua Silverman: 13,115 shares & 10,420 options
Again, names link to the Form 4 filed closest to the merger. Option amounts are from the 2017 10k HERE.
*This list is minus Peter Hoang and Glynn Wilson since I went over their numbers in the previous post. Additionally, Joshua Silverman owned shares through Iroquois Capital Management. Those shares were all purchased by Iroquois in public offerings. Upon his appointment to the board on August 1st 2016 he left Iroquois so had no voting or dispositive power over the shares they held. He also owned 153,333 shares & 218,168 warrants exercisable between $1.20 and $15 via JNS holdings Group. Full disclosure, Silverman is a snake and should have never been allowed on the board, but the position was offered to him in exchange for amending a previous warrant agreement. Regardless of this fact all the shares he beneficially owned, with the exception of the ones issued to him upon his appointment to the board, he purchased fair and square.
Of the above-mentioned directors Grisewood, Reddish, and Silverman were the ones to leave upon the merger. Based on their above share counts none of them made out with a bunch of cash either. Wasserman remained on the board until May 25th of this year at which point Katharine Knobil was appointed in his place. Laskow-Pooley still sits on the board.
As referenced in the above 10K for year-end 2017 Kenneth Dart, through Eastern Capital, owned 2,333,334 shares and 1,666,668 warrants. Tapimmune did an offering in May of 2018 to get them to the merger date where Eastern purchased another 1,300,000 shares, Form 4 HERE, bringing their total share count to 3,633,334. HERE is the 13D dated October 30th 2018 as of the closing of the merger. On 2/18/2020, Form 4 HERE, they exercised their series A-1 warrants at $1.20 bringing their total ownership up to 4,050,001 shares and 1,250,001 warrants. On June 16, 2020 the series E-1 warrants expired worthless, Form 4 HERE, bringing Eastern’s ownership to 4,050,001 shares and 833,334 warrants. HERE is the 13D dated June 16, 2020. On August 11, 2020 the series F-1 warrants expired worthless, Form 4 HERE, bringing Eastern’s ownership to 4,050,001 shares and 416,667 warrants. On March 15, 2021 Eastern sold 500,000 shares on the open market at a weighted average price of $1.8577 bringing Eastern’s ownership to 3,550,001 shares and 416,667 warrants (*these warrants expired worthless in August of 2021). HERE is the 13D showing this transaction. With this transaction and the subsequent secondary offering done the same day Eastern Capital is no longer a 5% holder of Marker stock and therefore is not subject to any reporting requirements. Their final known holdings are 3,550,001 shares.
Kenneth Dart was never an officer or director of Tapimmune or Marker. All of his beneficially owned shares were purchased in offerings done by Tapimmune. He damn near financed that whole company and was a long-time believer. He watched Eastern’s position climb to be worth ~$55M then fall to be worth ~$7.5M before he sold any shares. Even then he only sold $925K worth. Since Eastern is not a 5% holder anymore we won’t know what they ultimately do with the remainder of their shares, but they clearly were not in a big rush to sell them.