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.
You're a smart guy but that statement is pretty ignorant-
Viagra was originally an attempt to treat hypertension- it had the inadvertent side effect of increased blood supply to the penis and they pushed forward to treat erectile dysfunction primarily.
CV value was unexpected- patent applied- what they can do it with- basically anything they want- Libigel was found safe so you don't think that, at its worst, it can be used off label for CV purposes like T is already for FSD? Even at its worst it would drive sales of libigel solely for the off label use.
How about you reply to JTFM as follows:
Hey JTFM, you're right- not only will they be treating deficient T-levels but maybe serve dual purpose with the CV benefits; Libigel is safe, what would there be to lose for the cardiac patient with their limited options of medical treatment's on the market given libigel's safety and CV benefits. Viagra not only treats ED but also hypertension- Libigel can fall in the same category. Also, I'm not an MM nor am I shorting this stock.
That would be a better reply
-RG
Hi jtfm, I understood the lockout prevents the sale of shares, but they are still allowed to purchase at any time right? I recall mangano buying some not too long ago, just wanted clarification. Thanks in advance
-RG
Thanks for the informative response.
-RG
JTFM, any thought on being blunt with AP and just asking him directly what his intentions will be when the shares are released?
I personally believe the pps won't have a dramatic change until then, at that time don't know if it will be up or down
-RG
We're all not lucky enough to get clocked by a drunk driver. I'll a take teebone from a drunk any day assuming it doesn't kill me. That's why we have insurance, lawyers, etc. to suck every penny we can out of those who make stupid mistakes.
So the people who have pumping it since it was $44.28 in early 2012 are the smart ones because they have big words.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
? Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29
JTFM- with Ross buying, I always wondered where his place was in all of this- have you tried reaching out to him- His buying of shares may lend to value and confidence of the company, however, what are the odds of him behind all of rise and drops of pps- maybe he could be the "short" we're all frustrated with? Also with the CEO's possible tax selling, do they need to publicly state that this occured?
I found myself much less stressed these past few green sessions and a drop of 2 bucks at a blink of an eye is a heavy burden to bear- everyone is frustrated, I hope our worries and stress are allayed soon enough.
-RG
Red is that guy on the quad of any college campus- the religious zealot that is holding up a sandwich board harassing all the passerby's that their going to burn in hell...
Just like the zealot is entitled to the opinion that everyone is going to burn in hell except him...Red has a right to his opinion, but truthfully, his opinion does not contribute to the overall conversation and frankly, it's generally accepted as being annoying, it is at least to me...
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-RG
Last time we established the low, there wasn't a rhyme or reason, no news to justify the drop- as has been the case with these major drops in pps. This time around, news came out before opening bell- there wasn't a knee jerk reaction when the markets opened...actually really not dropping dramatically until a few hours after the market opened. Clearly this was a concerted effort and I am not saying getting that letter is great news but I'm surprised the pps didn't drop when the bell rang. Hitting the stops was a goal which was achieved as far as I'm concerned.
The market favours this merger- the dow had the biggest drop since 2011 the day the merger was announced, and we were one of a few companies that were up that day.
I'm holding like everyone else, I'm frustrated like everyone else but we're playing a rigged game on both sides (on bpax and mm's)
GLTA
-RG
In doing some research regarding hearings on the subject- they can basically force ANI/BPAX's hand and force them to institute a RS to regain compliance in a certain period of time or risk delisting- could be 1-6mos based on what I've uncovered. The alternative would be if ANI/BPAX make a point to justify their ability to get PPS up without RS, nasdaq may also provide them a timetable to do so without imposing the requirement of RS.ANI/BPAX could do a RS on their own and would get it approved without needing bpax SH votes, so it is what it is, but it's not without hurting their shares as well- they obviously aren't needing to recover from multiple RS like some of BPAX SH, but there you go...of course it could also go down in many other ways.
-RG
I thought the sole reason for them to incorporate ANI into BPAX and maintain listing with the BPAX symbol was to avoid all this?
-RG
Thanks, just hot off the presses! I was thinking the other day- whenever they do any PR in the evening, it's never good...glad they decided to announce it in the morning...
GLTA
RG
Any word? Isn't the meeting happening right now?
-RG
Well written response. I agree.
-RG
The removal of the RS is huge. With the ownership of shares by team ANI, it would be in their best interest to focus getting pps up. Any conversation of RS would affect their shares as well, so even going down that road would motivate them to use a rs to grow the business...
you can ask yourself why this didn't apply to bpax this past rs...I don't know...the only one that was really effected by rs was ross m. And it was a risk of delisting at the time.
with respect to ownership, what difference does it make if we own 49% vs 43%...don't we lose majority control in either scenario? If pps is $1.10, how does our % ownership effect the value of our shares. I agree with the board on the criminal valuation but I'm not experienced with the effect of our ownership on our share value, I get it when it comes to voting and decisions etc, just not sure on the effect of acquiescing to the new ownership terms. Any help would be appreciated
-RG
JTFM, so with the updated merger, is it their intention to finalize it by may 1, 2013? So we should be getting some PR over the next week or so. Thanks
-RG
Most likey that was in the works for some time now...clencher would be Simes' stepping down to set up shop with abbvie to aid in the R & D of further studies on libigel with abbvie's money and open relationship with Ani.
Jtfm, do you still have an open line with Simes...would be interesting to get his opinion on this appointment and how "coincidental" it is.
-RG
I thought those who held on close of Jan 17 had voting rights, regardless of whether they bought or sold after that date...but I can't remember...too many changes and rules to keep things straight...
I ended up voting no across the board for those interested in keeping tally. Just like everyone- merger is a fantastic idea- terms are shite.
-RG
if they are working against the shareholder why offer 40mil for the cvr why not 80mil or 120mil. If they want the merger to go through to take advantage of us with the idea that they won't be issuing the CVR why not sweeten the pot and offer more, knowing full well it won't be delivered
-RG
We're all considering abbvie/abbot behind the scenes, but maybe it's Teva? it's one of the largest generic's company in the world- ANI is a manufacturer of generics and BPAX would be introducing a few more products to their list, all of which have patents not expiring anytime soon...Teva is already in bed with BPAX as we all know...
RG
Okay Win, it's March 16, 2013, merger didn't pass...now what? We fundamentally lack marketing and manufacturing and let's say Simes picks up his boot straps and starts tackling these two area's to get Libi to market without FDA approval- we're talking years not months to establish Libi presence to market as we would be essentially starting from zero- how are we going to fund this type of undertaking- I can tell you it'll cost a ton more than 18million...maybe merging with another company or outsourcing/licensing- we had several suitors and according to Simes, this was the best deal- how well will we do with our negotiations with company xyz in the future?
I'm a realist- I got into this company with the belief that Testosterone therapy is big business and the product and the science behind it is strong- A journey of a thousand steps will always start with one etc etc...I'm long and I get we're all underwater, some worse than others, I also understand that ANI and BPAX are a good fit, no one is arguing that; the problem is, no one is mentioning what we can do without a merger/buyout- essentially going it alone for the next year. I wholeheartedly believe that we will be sold for pennies on the dollar should we go it alone, if not go bankrupt in the process.
We have R&D of a few products, some licenses and patents, all of which are no where near full manufacture/marketing potential, we're listed on nasdaq and have 18mil...The question becomes what can BPAX do with all of this vs what can ANI do with it. I chose ANI- getting Simes out the door per merger details makes me think BPAX BOD chose ANI as well.
RG
It's based on their terms/agreement when setting up the proxy from my understanding. It's not uncommon, it's just how they set it up and is actually fair in the sense that we need to have a majority vote in FAVOR of the merger.
As an example on a short scale- Let's say Bluth's banana's has 5 board members- they're voting to get out of the banana business and start selling mayonegg's but this decision is major and requires majority vote...2 are for and 2 are nay- One of the board members abstained (had to perform in an "illusion" show)- The vote fails and they keep selling banana's (they eventually burn the company to the ground and collect the insurance money but that's another story); although this member didn't vote, it's counted as a nay given that the requirements of the proposal were a majority in favor of.
RG
for those that are openly and consistently stating to "teach them a lesson" and vote no or believe an against vote is a far better option...explain how it is a better option... Having us go bankrupt is better how? And this is going to screw the shorts? And teach simes a lesson by keeping his job? Wherein he can easily dilute our shares through an offering to keep bpax afloat until he buries any resemblance of value left...and this is better than merging with a manufacturing company that would drive revenue for the products we developed...
do you believe simes brought the pps down through malice? No news and shorty are driving pps down...In the past 30 days we went up 25-30% and dropped in half as much time...why?
merger terms are not ideal, but this is a risk benefit situation...hold out on current terms, we may go at it alone, then what. We're not giving everything up with ANI on top, we are gaining a pharm manufacturing facility and resources for product marketing, on products we developed.
for those posting multiple times a day, please respond with a well thought out, coherent argument and with as little hyperbole as possible- with that, I can hopefully understand where you are coming from and will provide me the opportunity of making my vote with much more conviction, regardless of for or nay.
respectfully
RG
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Mar 06, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Verastem, Inc., VSTM +0.76% a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing drugs to treat cancer by the targeted killing of cancer stem cells, announced the appointment of Stephen Sherwin, M.D., to the Board of Directors.
"Steve has a wealth of biopharmaceutical and drug development expertise," said Christoph Westphal, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman and CEO of Verastem. "We have translated Dr. Bob Weinberg's pioneering cancer stem cell research into clinical drug candidates, and Steve's insights and guidance will be a key to our future success."
Verastem is currently conducting a Phase 1/2 trial of lead focal adhesion kinase (FAK) inhibitor VS-6063 in combination with paclitaxel for patients with ovarian cancer and is planning a potentially pivotal trial in mesothelioma for midyear 2013.
"Verastem is well positioned to identify and develop novel agents for the treatment of cancer through the targeting of cancer stem cells," said Dr. Sherwin. "Verastem's innovative approach to the treatment of cancer has the potential to substantially improve patient outcomes. I am excited to become a part of the Verastem team and have the opportunity to contribute to the development of therapies for some of the most difficult to treat cancers that confront us today."
Dr. Sherwin is Chairman of the Board and cofounder of Ceregene, Inc. and a director of Biogen Idec BIIB +0.79% , BioSante Pharmaceuticals BPAX -1.56% , Neurocrine Biosciences NBIX +2.11% , and Rigel Pharmaceuticals RIGL +4.25% . He is also a member of the Board and Chairman Emeritus of the Biotechnology Industry Organization and has recently served on the President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST) Working Group on Advancing Innovation in Drug Development and Evaluation. Dr. Sherwin is a Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and a volunteer Attending Physician in the Hematology/Oncology Division of San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Sherwin holds a B.A. in biology summa cum laude from Yale University and an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and is board-certified in internal medicine and medical oncology. He is a fellow of the American College of Physicians and a member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Association for Cancer Research.
About Verastem, Inc.
Verastem, Inc. VSTM +0.76% is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing drugs to treat cancer by the targeted killing of cancer stem cells. Cancer stem cells are an underlying cause of tumor recurrence and metastasis. Verastem is developing small molecule inhibitors of signaling pathways that are critical to cancer stem cell survival and proliferation: FAK, PI3K/mTOR and Wnt. For more information, please visit www.verastem.com.
RG
JTFM- you've been pretty quiet this past week- given your conversation with Simes, any new thoughts on the subject? what's your opinion as to the series of events should we vote No on the merger?
RG
remember that ANI is putting it on the table too with this IPO- they're also not in the market to lose money- can't imagine companies casually walking into the discussion of public offerings/dilution without due reason- there are many steps before that point and remember, we got 6mos lock up- they're also not going to compromise their shares in that period of time. We are the surviving company and not the other way around- to me that means they have a momentum driven plan because you have to ask, why consider the IPO now and not doing it alone awhile ago, and at the end of the day- what's in it for ANI- the cheap IPO- if that was the case they could've merged with any other company out there for far better a deal (I recognize they do have a good deal with bpax though to our misfortune) and could've done it awhile ago.
My thoughts are- we merge, all the PR we missed this past year is gonna flood the wire and then be acquired by big pharma- 3mos or 3 years, but who really knows.
-RG
for those voting no out of spite of simes...with your vote, doesn't he keep his job? What lesson is to be taught by this? Can't he turn around and do the same thing that everyone is assuming ANI BOD is gonna do with our shares?
-RG
forgetting nasdaq req for the time being. Anybody run the numbers for market value/pps with the merged co as it is?
-RG
sorry for multiple posts, trying to avoid questions being lost in a sigle post.
when rs happens, why are they shooting for the $4 minimum...they could well overshoot it with an exaggerated rs and immediatley short the hell out of it...but at this point, it looks like their doing the minimum of what's needed for nasdaq requirements...
-RG
surf1944, I'm curious as to what your personal take is on this, you're a person of few posts on this board but are insightful nonetheless.
-RG
Let's say the merger passes...let's also say that shortly thereafter, TEVA announces production of biot to be manufactured by ANI/bpax...what type of market response would one expect with that...pps effect?
also, never got a response to my previous post.
-RG
that's a good point/idea...of course, might be more challenging to get his ear than simes'. I'd ask what his end game with libi and the major benefit to them would be for the merger.
-RG
For those whose intention it is to vote no, what is the next step? Say you're running the company- all voting is in and it's NO on all counts- what next? This isn't a rhetorical question nor am I being facetious, seriously, what is the next step.
We speculate and hedge our bets for the most likely, positive outcome to regain our losses, and I've read a countless number of posts that give reason as to WHY to vote NO- BOD are idiots, in it for themselves, golden parachutes, Simes is the devil- saying it over and over again doesn't dismiss the fact that a step needs to be taken one way or the other- a vote of Yes pushes us into uncharted territory and we may get screwed, and we may not...but for those pushing a No Vote, where do you see us in 3 mos, 12mos, 2-5 years?
-RG
Thanks JTFM, I truly appreciate your efforts, hard work and dedication to this board, as well as your willingness to communicate any and all information you come across to us...when all is said and done, good or bad, I think we all collectively owe you a beer.
if you get simes' ear again, I would be interested in the obvious questions that are driving some of the frustration on this board:
1. Justify the valuation
2.the why, how and royalties on gvax
3. Any addendums to merger details prior to voting
4. Contingencies on a no vote to the merger
5. Why no valuable PR
6. What's his take on current pps
7. RS is for compliance but if the merger has been in the talks, why not tackle handeling pps better to avoid RS having already performed one last summer
8. What's his perception of shareholder confidence in bod and past performance- this answer will lend to whether he is a realist or completely delusional.
9. What's his estimate for pps in 6mos, a year.
1,2 and 4 are my most important questions to be answered. If he's already answered those in past correspondences, direct me to the answer.
Thanks in advance and keep up the good work.
-RG
it's funny...he doesn't answer- that guys a jerk, too busy eating caviar off a naked woman...he responds-what is he doing responding to us nobodies on ihub...can never win.
I'm not condoning the actions they've taken to get us to this point, but you guys have to take emotion out of your decision. Vote yes, vote no, it's your personal call, but don't make a decision to seek revenge or to spite bod, that's dumb.
also if you think $600k is something he'd write off, it isn't...he's where he is today because he knows the difference of being rich versus being wealthy...he's not going to let $600k go so casually...but then again who the hell knows; at the end of the day, it's all speculation
-RG
question to the board: what's the end game?
We've discussed ad nauseum the specifics in regards to GVAX, CVR's and undervaluation- we've discussed how these greatly affect our decision to vote- in general terms, the sentiment on this board is leaning towards NO to the merger- not necessarily because the merger is bad, but because of the way it was written/presented.
My question is assuming that the retail shareholder can influence this vote and results in not merging- where does that leave us? Revise the terms? part everything out? bankruptcy?
I'm of the opinion that if they were trying to get the most money to retire to an island, there are other ways of going about it.
Domino's have been set up over the course of the year- PPS dropping in the face of very little to no negative news- we popped in Feb after Bio-T but haven't returned- since then, I can't recall any substantial amount of negative news to drive us to our current PPS during that period of time (I can recall a few positive PR's that did very little). I can't see them trying to drive price down because we would've seen a "cause and effect" already- sometimes we as a board come late to the party and if we can see assets being undervalued in this merger- shouldn't all of the financial sector see that as well? I'd say that's pretty negative, but PPS hasn't responded in turn as one would expect.
We're all speculating, there isn't any truth or fact in anything we say unless one of us is actually on the BOD, just wanted to get thoughts on their end game and what options remain should we not merge. Thanks in advance
-RG
Jadite, I'm of the same opinion- This scenario can't be new or unique to the financial world. I'm waiting until the last minute to vote as well.
-RG
agree with you 100%
1mil is chump change, just hoping the royalties compensate for the buy in. Hey, it's 1 more million closer to 49.9%.
-RG
I had the same feeling...push an SA puff article, twitter is a flutter from posters who literally have the word "short" in their twitter handle...news on monday morning.
I'm surprised that the turnaround was so quick this time around...in nov-dec 2012, it took 1 month to erase our gains (over a day or two)...this was much quicker.
-RG