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.
I disagree that it's mostly sentiment, it's economic rationality. If I'd been in on the Paulson raises all along and could (recently) buy shares at $0.50, sell them at $0.53, and keep the warrants, that's what I'd be doing too. The risk/reward of keeping massive chunks of money in an illiquid, OTC stock just doesn't make sense if you can keep the warrants, even if you're a very wealthy investor. Calling it "sentiment" is misguided when you examine the reality of where the supply of shares on the market is coming from.
I think that your link to the listing standards is broken - didn't work for me anyways - but you're going to need to refer to the initial listing standards. They differ from the ongoing listing requirements. This was the subject of a long and thorough discussion on the board back in March/April of last year.
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/listing/NYSE_Initial_Listing_Standards_Summary.pdf
NASDAQ has similar initial listing requirements:
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/initialguide.pdf
Regarding selling ex-US rights, that sounds great, but I don't know how that's going to work out. I have a lingering question that research and repeatedly asking the board has not answered: how does licensing or sale of rights to leronlimab work for a single indication, when the exact same compound and delivery mechanism is expected to be effective in multiple - and large - indications. How do you sell the rights to distribute Advil for use for a fever, but not for a headache? It's obviously a little more nuanced for prescription drugs, but it's not like prescription drugs are never used off label. I've long thought that this is why we don't have a partner or buyer for HIV or GvHD individually, and now cancer is in the picture as well. But then, regardless of my personal ignorance, most BP would have known the history of the preclinical work and the links between CCR5 HIV mechanisms and cancer metastasis, so cancer likely would have been part of the thinking for them all along.
I disagree strongly, and believe that being on the OTCQB is a massive impediment to organic share price appreciation. Sure, it's happened with other stocks... but did those other stocks have the capital structure CytoDyn currently has? Not checking my numbers here, but the company has probably sold over 100 million shares to private placement investors in the last two years, complete with warrants, at a very low price. In other words, there's a massive amount of shares out there with a reasonable economic incentive to sell the shares and hold the warrants. To overcome that, you need buyers. As has been pointed out, mutual funds by and large can't touch OTC companies. Hedge funds can if they so choose, but you have to convince them, and then convince them not to flip on a 20% move. Most individual investors wouldn't dream of buying OTC stocks. We have a massive, massive supply and demand problem, and at least one side of that (demand) is greatly exacerbated by being on the OTC.
All of that said, I don't know where I stand on the RS issue. I would have taken the risk in April if the choice was mine, but I don't know if I would now.
Also, initial listing requirements for either the NYSE or NASDAQ require between $2 and $4 as a minimum bid. In most cases, you have to be at $4, but there are various criteria that a company could potentially qualify under with lower bids. Realistically, CYDY would likely need to be at $4. That's a long ways to go organically, given the supply/demand conundrum. Can it happen? Sure. But I think the only way we're getting there quickly is either a licensing deal on the diagnostic test with a sizeable up front payment or a solid partnership. Aside from that, I don't think we'll approach that level of appreciation (~700% gain...) until we see revenues. A couple hundred million a year in revenue from combo HIV would clean things up quickly.
There’s also that whole IP issue... since Pestell’s (rather, CytoDyn’s) patent would specifically - by name - protect against the use of maraviroc in any cancer indication related to the inhibition of cancer metastasis. Even if a company wanted to sell the toxicity to cancer patients, which sounds like a pretty bad idea, they couldn’t do it. Vicriviroc is also specifically named, so even if Pfizer wanted to try to rehab that one... too bad.
So yeah, not much competition out there for the big ticket indications. The whole situation blows my mind if I think too hard about it.
Wait... I think I know the answer to this one.
It’ll be more fun to let him answer it though.
While I agree with you and am also of the mind that the BLA is INCREDIBLY vital, I have one large question for anyone who happens to have access to executive management:
What happened to the confidence that they could license the diagnostic test? Obviously, if they're looking to raise $25mm on objectively terrible terms, they don't expect significant funding from that in even the coming months. But since about November, they've spoken like that's imminent. That's exceptionally frustrating to me. It blows my mind that they can't find bridge funding if the diagnostic test is as valuable and easily-licensed as they've suggested.
It doesn't change anything about how I view the mid- to long-term future of the company, but I did expect that the majority of raises on terrible terms would be done. $0.30 warrants exercisable immediately?? That'll help the share price for sure. How much cash do I need to scrape together to get in?
It sounded as though Pourhassan was discussing the possibility for a joint study with Merck, not explicitly discussing licensing or partnership. While not as exciting, it also may not require an NDA.
I agree completely.
Also, I chased down a comment that Pourhassan made right at the end of his piece that caught my ear. If anyone had lingering doubts about whether BP even knows about CYDY... you can probably put that to rest.
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/r-d/2-hiv-drugs-prevent-breast-cancer-metastasis-preclinical-trials
Yes, it's old, but I guarantee it's not forgotten. I bet they all thought Pro 140 would fail as an HIV treatment (see: vicriviroc), and they didn't have the IP for cancer. So why bother? Problem is... it worked for HIV so the company didn't die. Now, their old friend from extremely promising cancer pre-clinical trials went and took his cancer IP to this company they all thought would die. Now the company is worth more than they can pay, but the capital structure and OTC status keeps it at $0.58/share.
This company existing in its current state is an unicorn. I don't think that adequate comps for this situation exist.
Makes sense, no worries.
I never mentioned the share buy back rumor. Not sure what you’re responding to here.
Agreed completely. I would have expanded on my point and made it more clear, but I was busy at the time.
We’re talking the same language for sure.
They’d have to cut their burn rate to stretch it to three weeks.
And it closed 12/28/2018. Not the date of the 8k.
Great post, appreciate you taking the time to share this insight.
I’m with you. Wish I’d have waited two days to up my position by 30% or so, but oh well. These prices are silly, regardless of where you place the terminal value.
I won’t be able to call in tomorrow, but you’ll be glad to know that I emailed Jody last and let her know that I’ve been very disappointed by the lack of outreach and visibility, particularly on social media. She said she passed my concerns on to management, so they should be prepared with a response.
Management doesn’t care about the shareholders?
I don’t think that you, nor anyone else not currently sitting on the board at CytoDyn, has the information needed to make that statement factually. Remember when we didn’t know that a renowned oncologist was studying leronlimab because he believed it was the molecule he needed in order to bring his work and IP to fruition?
I wonder what we don’t know now.
I’m not saying management is perfect or anything of the sort, but it’s imperative that we shareholders acknowledge what we don’t know here. Which is a whole heck of a lot. Baseless statements don’t help anyone or advance real discussions.
By the way, it’s sound advice to take a break from this board from time to time. Emotions run high and folks get anxious, particularly when we’re in a period where we’re constantly expecting news. Fear and anxiety is contagious, and nobody needs more stress in their lives. I’m sure I’ll ghost again at some point when I need a break for a bit.
Tommy, your logical and factually-supported arguments are in danger of winning me over...
Fair enough, and I respect your opinion. But a little transparency on your comparisons may change the calculus a bit.
- EXEL currently has two approved drugs, and my brief research indicates that they only collect milestones and royalties on sales due to partnerships. Their most recent 10-Q stated that they collected $225.4mm in total revenues for net income of $126.6mm for the three months ended 9/30/2018. Their current market cap is $6.4B. CYDY currently owns the majority (less small royalties to precursor companies) of all future cash flows. When you consider that the third party market reports on just HIV indications suggest potential annual revenues of (roughly) $1B on combo and $3-4B on mono, your comparison starts to make a stronger case than I believe you intended for a $10B+ market valuation. That's not even considering cancer. Who needs a buyout? Obviously I'm glossing over the need to get approval and market the drug effectively. I'm well aware of that, just comping EXEL against theoretical/potential future cash flows for CYDY.
- AVEO may be a better comparison for your purposes here, with an approved cancer therapy and a $257mm market cap. However, they're also engaged in several partnerships (I didn't look up the details...) and the drug is only approved in the European Economic Zone. Total revenue for the three months ended 9/30/2018? $2.5mm. Not to say that this isn't a decent comp in some ways, but their are details to consider.
Generally, I agree with you in terms of the value of the HIV franchise in the case of a buyout prior to full marketing. Of course, this (or a partnership) would have to happen prior to marketing since CYDY has no capacity to market the drug once approved. This is a reduction in leverage for CYDY, no doubt. I think where we truly differ in our assessments is the potential value of the cancer franchise. Understanding that premiums vary based on the playing field (e.g. CAR-T being hot for a time), cash flow is still king, and the potential cash flows from approval for cancer could be significant. Don't forget that colon trials are supposedly next. The indications are likely to continue expanding, since it acts on the mechanism of metastasis. I believe that mechanism to be fairly common across solid tumor cancers, though I'm no oncologist.
Do I think the very high end of your BO range is exceptionally likely? I don't know, a lot has to happen. The company lacks leverage since it can't currently operationalize any drug, which would make it dependent on multiple suitors to drive up a price. I have unresolved questions about the IP protection, although it doesn't keep me up at night and nobody has ever presented anything particularly troubling in this regard. And let's be real - we're sitting at $0.60/share, so all of this talk is meaningless until something happens to break the cycle we're in. But I think that it's completely reasonable to point out that based on value of future cash flows, which is ostensibly how a suitor would view an acquisition... your examples actually make a decent case for CYDY to be closer to the top of your range than the middle or bottom.
First things first, though. Let's break this financing cycle, and maybe we can start to see where an actual functioning market would value the company. That's all that matters at the end of the day - what someone will pay for it!
Which right now is $0.60 or so.
A troubling - and hopefully needless - question, to be sure.
At that point, I suppose I’d be hoping for bang up interim data on cancer coupled with a well-executed reverse split. Which the board no longer has the authority to do, if I recall correctly.
Based on relatively recent acquisitions (Kite and Juno, anyone?) and the potential indications for Leronlimab, I don’t think the upper ranges you have listed are particularly outlandish. However, as our resident (Bored)Lawyer often wonders aloud, it’s completely fair to ask how we get there from here, in terms of market cap/share price.
Personally, I think the answer lies in breaking the funding cycle, as I laid out in my post the other day. Right now, there’s simply no compelling reason in my mind for someone to give us money on significantly better terms for simple equity or debt. That effectively locks down the share price, in my simple mind. I think (and hope) that once we break this mouse trap of a capital structure, market forces might take over to some degree and improve the valuation.
Let’s hope that they’re as close on monetizing the test (via license or sale) as Pestell insinuated during the Q&A on the September call. I’d like to get a chance to “test” my thesis. Soon.
At this point, I scarcely believe that they'll entertain friendly offers at all for the whole show until they have preliminary cancer readouts. Then they'll be calling Christie's to start the bidding. I'm hoping - and betting - there will be more than one bidder in attendance if the interim cancer readout is favorable.
For those talking about unsolicited tender offers, I recall there being a poison pill provision passed a while back. I can't recall the terms or the strength and don't care enough at the moment to dig through the paperwork, but I envision that any potential transaction would be friendly.
I'm always unsure what degree of protection the patents provide. For example, Pestell has patents protecting the use of CCR5 inhibitors to treat cancer, but then mentioned on the webcast the other day that Merck and Pfizer had recently begun studying the use of CCR5 inhibitors in cancer treatment.
Any patent lawyers out there?
Good post, thanks. I think you're generally correct. However, I don't think it's too early at all for a partnership on the prostate test. What I've been able to dig up from some research on similar deals suggests that it's not uncommon to have an up front payment for exclusive rights, followed by additional milestone payments for things like approval. If this arrangement is indeed somewhat common, a year or so seems like a very reasonable window all things considered. Coupled with Pestell's comments that I referenced earlier, perhaps Pourhassan's comments weren't so undisciplined after all. I'm wary of Pourhassan's promises based on past experience, but I believe Pestell chooses words carefully.
That said, this isn't my area of expertise in the least. I just tend to be a quick study and know how to use google. If anyone has strong experience in the biotech field regarding the structure and timing of licensing deals, etc., that would be pretty informative in this case.
Your point #5 is interesting to me, and may be most in line with Bobbyinvest's point in his post earlier that started this general thread. I admittedly don't know much about this sort of late-stage funding, what terms such a fund might find appealing, etc., and it's difficult to find public information on comps. I believe that there's an open offering through Paulson that hasn't been fully subscribed yet. My way of thinking would say that if I were a fund looking to invest, I'd go about trying to take down any remaining capacity there first. Makes it hard for me to see how a fund jumps straight into giving us money on (significantly) less dilutive terms when there are ways to get exposure at a lower cost.
But again... I'm just a guy who gets some of this stuff from being involved in a completely different world and who knows how to use google.
Definitely valid to ask. My interpretation of Saltz's comments was more of a shades of grey sort of thing. I don't doubt that the test is superior and can produce significant revenues, etc. Maybe there are difficulties in getting it to market that were a bit glossed over? Maybe the revenue stream isn't sustainable due to lack of significant protection via exclusivity for some reason? Who knows. I'm sure many of us took statements to mean that the test getting approved, marketed, and adopted was the next best thing to a done deal. Probably, like most things, it appears clear and simple from the outside but is more complicated on the inside.
He definitely said in the September Q&A portion that prior to the acquisition his company was in talks about licensing deals, and that he believed that things could move quickly once the acquisition closed. Certain words there may mean different things to different people, but I don't believe that he would have outright lied about that.
I guess one day we'll all wake up and know the answer. I doubt it'll be next Wednesday, but I'd happily be surprised in that regard.
I get the theory, but tend to disagree with BoredLaywer on this point. I can paint a very reasonable scenario where Pestell would be willing to "sell the test for pennies on the dollar" to CytoDyn from a purely self-interested perspective. Don't forget, he's now a significant owner of CytoDyn! Granted, he won't see all of the benefit of revenue from the test, or even close to all of it, but he'll get value from it nonetheless. But think of it this way:
1) He sells Prostagene to BP for the true value of the test, or licenses it. He has a boatload of money (amount TBD and not necessarily relevant), but still doesn't have a safe and effective CCR5 compound to advance his real work.
OR...
2) He agrees to "sell the test for pennies on the dollar" to CytoDyn, which he becomes a significant owner of in the process. He does this under the assumption that allowing CYDY to license the test and use the proceeds to develop/advance leronlimab in HIV (and cancer, GvHD, MS...) will result in him eventually making far more money than the prostate test alone ever would. Even as a minority owner. HIV revenue projections alone would probably allow that, nevermind the golden goose of cancer. Which he would know more about than anyone.
Put simply, I don't agree that it would necessarily be irrational from a self-interested viewpoint for Pestell to make the deal that he did instead of licensing or selling the test on his own via an independent Prostagene. That doesn't mean I'm correct, either. Just that I never saw the question of "why not go it alone if it's worth that much?" as a puzzle to be solved. I see it as begging the question "then, what must leronlimab be worth in his eyes?"
Saltz' information/inferences may very well be on point as well, but I'm not positive that added difficulty negates the logic here. It just means that maybe we limp along with a few more Paulson raises than we would if we could generate a good sum of money quickly through a license.
Good conversations today.
Completely fair perspective if you have more information there than we do. No need for details. It certainly complicates my most likely theoretical scenario, but there are a number of outs for sure. Appreciate the input.
I follow your logic there, and don't disagree. I'm looking at the test as an opportunity to monetize an asset to break the funding cycle that we're in, and that frees up everything else. Including the share price. The opportunity to continue development without NEEDING to sell shares or license/partner leronlimab increases our leverage considerably.
I also think that, despite some comments I've heard floated, the actual mechanics of licensing leronlimab for a single indication (e.g. HIV, or GvHD) would be very difficult. Which is why this never happened - a suitor would want a deal for all indications to protect their licensed market, but weren't willing to pay what the company would require for additional indications (e.g. cancer). That's why I think the test will go first. Even $30-50mm up front for exclusive rights to that test looks like a screaming deal to me, if it's as superior as data suggests, and there are no issues with multiple markets and indications.
All that to say, I sleep very well at night with this investment.
So, I don't think anyone on the board thinks that it's cheap or good to be giving away equity. In fact, I think that most folks have been vocally against the terms on which the company has been selling shares.
Aside from that, I have some thoughts on our financing situation, and maybe you can help me point out flaws in my thinking...
At this point, I don't think that anyone is going to give us either a) significantly better terms on equity, or; b) debt in the absence of a pending deal. The equity piece I feel is pretty simple. The stock price is in the high $0.50's, and seems pretty much stuck there until a catalyst. Historical terms (recent) have been $0.50/share with some level of warrant coverage. I just can't see anyone paying significantly more than that for new shares until the share price itself moves. Why would anyone give us $2/share or something at this point? If they wanted the exposure, there are much cheaper ways to get in. So, I think we're stuck on the equity front until the valuation moves organically.
That leaves debt, but first, a bit more about equity. Let's use round numbers for the sake of simplicity, and say that we have about 150mm authorized shares not issued, or about 25% of total AS, assuming OS and warrants of 450mm. These numbers aren't exact, I know. Let's also say we're looking for $50mm. According to the investor presentations, that's probably enough to finish all planned trials, submit the BLAs, and have a little cushion. As it turns out, based on recent equity issuance terms, $50mm would get you about 150mm shares (100mm shares, 50mm warrants). That would max out our AS, and be worth 25% of the company. The problem with debt at this point is that the default profile on debt would look very, very similar to the return profile on equity. If the drug and/or test gets approval and can be monetized, equity is going to do very well (and debt could be paid back); if not, equity is going to do very poorly (and debt will likely default). So the risk on each looks very, very similar. But the payout structure? Much different. Using an optimistic but not crazy future market cap of $10b if all goes well with HIV and cancer, O/S of 600mm shares, and a cost basis of $0.385/share (roughly what you come out to with 50% warrant coverage on $0.50 shares...), you would end up with a share price of $16.67/share for a return of over 43x (4300%). So when you compare that with debt, which would have a similar "default profile", even something like an exorbitant 100% annual looks puny when comparing both absolute and risk-adjusted returns. Of course, this changes if there is some sort of deal imminent and it's a true bridge financing situation, but right now we don't know that.
So where is my thinking wrong? Why would anyone give us equity on better terms currently, and why would anyone give us non-dilutive debt (i.e. not convertible)?
This is why share price freedom is likely to come from licensing the prostate test. When there's no funding more funding need, it's possible to break this capital structure trap that we're in. Could also come from a partnership based on early returns on cancer data, but I think they license the test first because it'll be a simpler deal and clear the path for leronlimab development.
Until one of those things happens... I believe we'll continue to see small raises from Paulson. Which ironically may actually end up being the best deal, because I strongly doubt we'll have to max out our authorized shares.
Thoughts from you or anyone else?
Still getting a lot of air time in the investor decks for something that’s on the shelf. Kind of odd treatment, overall. I agree with BoredLawyer that it’s inexcusable not to be pursuing GvHD actively without a compelling reason.
I happen to believe that that compelling reason is that the FDA said “HIV first”. Otherwise, the clear path months ago would have been to pursue an apparent cure for GvHD, go for accelerated approval, and use the expanded label approach for combo as well as mono, cancer, MS...
Hey @cytodyn, I'm sure somebody from the company monitors this board. Did you know that today, December 1, is World AIDS Day?
Might be a good time to break your social media silence. Stories don't sell themselves.
I agree with all of this, though I'd unfortunately be quite surprised with a GvHD enrollment PR. Those in my circle know I've long been high on GvHD's potential as a catalyst, but management seemed to make it clear on the September conference call that it was on the back burner for the moment. Perhaps I misunderstood Pourhassan's comments, or perhaps the relevance of his comments has passed.
I have a suspicion that the FDA has, ahem, "encouraged" them to pursue HIV first. Otherwise, outside looking in, my money would have been spent on pushing GvHD as hard and fast as possible. The preclinical research is mind blowing. The IDMC agreed to make it open label after only 10 patients in a double blind format. The safety data is already there from the HIV trials. If the clinical data is at all reflective of the preclinical data, the FDA should be begging for a BLA for an accelerated approval pathway. This could then be used as a platform for label expansion for HIV instead of vice versa. The fact that this hasn't seemed to be the plan tells me I'm either missing something, or the FDA is helping to guide some decisions there. Not mutually exclusive by any means.
I can imagine other reasons for pursuing HIV first, and obviously the cancer trials need to be started ASAP, but I really hope/wish they'll push GvHD concurrently. An additional 10 patients seems like a small price to pay to see - and show the world - what they might have there.
Thanks Pro140, appreciate that. I never left, there’s just not much to say most of the time. And when there is, others tend to do the job admirably.
Looking forward to Vegas myself, when that day comes.
We’re in the same neighborhood with expectations then. Good to know, and appreciate it.
I was curious to know where you got the management snapshot from, good to know that’s not easy to come by for Joe Nobody. Thanks for putting it out there.
I’d be incredibly interested in your valuation, though I understand your unwillingness to share openly. I myself have only put round numbers to it, because it became an academic exercise for me pretty quickly. It’s very obviously undervalued at this point, which makes my investment decision relatively easy.
...any IB, fund, or finance professional is going to do their own valuation and not rely on nearly nonexistent analyst coverage on an OTC stock. Same with the snapshot you shared of management.
I agree that any retail investor off the street is going to see this, and it's probably part of why the SP is where it currently sits.
Yes. By quite a bit. Assuming it actually turned $500mm in revenue, if it were to trade at a (ridiculous...) P/E of 1x, we'd be at $2/share currently ignoring costs of business, etc. That doesn't factor in the warrants that would be exercised, for those who will certainly bring it up.
For fun, consider the following P/E ratios. Admittedly from mature companies, etc.
GSK: 40x
GILD: 56x
JAZZ: 18x
JAZZ may be the most fun comparison. 2017? $488mm net income on $1,618mm total revenue. 60mm shares outstanding (edit: about 10% of CYDY's current share cap) for the neighborhood of $8.15 trailing EPS. $150/share today. I'm mixing a few time frames and conventions for the sake of simplicity, but the point holds pretty well. CYDY isn't trading in the real world at the moment.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/JAZZ?p=JAZZ
JAZZ traded at $0.89 in March of '09. It traded at $8 in September of '09.
With this in mind, I'll go back to my earlier question that I posted (what must this thing really be worth...?) Consider these projections from management's presentations and/or discussions:
Prognostic test: $500mm annual revenue
HIV market (combo): $1.2B
HIV market (mono): $4B
Cancer: ...?
Think back to the numbers on JAZZ, then sleep better tonight with your CYDY investment.
Thanks for the clarification - I clearly misunderstood that point. I’ll still take one needle over twelve!
Seems like there are a lot of anxious folks on the board right now, but I think some of you are missing the point when trying to put together the picture around financing, the acquisition, the Prostagene test and a possible licensing deal, etc. So let's think this through a bit.
The value of the diagnostic test has been estimated at anywhere between about $500mm to $700mm annually, depending on reimbursement rates (where the $3,500 figure came from - that's what insurance companies currently pay) and market penetration (which is assumed to be high... a more accurate test that has you pee in a cup instead of having twelve needles "penetrate" your prostate? sign me up). The high end assumes the same reimbursement price tag as is currently paid, and near 100% adoption rate. You can do that math yourself from data in the most recent investor deck. A colleague of mine noted that the independent market study found something closer to a $500mm annual market - I haven't seen that number, but that's easy enough to get to from the data I have seen by being a bit more conservative. Assuming the test works - and it appears to - it seems that it will be quite a cash cow at some point for someone. I'm throwing unfounded numbers here, but something like $30mm up front with a kicker when it's approved doesn't seem like a bad investment for a BP.
Why would we license it, and why would we license it for so "cheap" if the real cash flow is that certain? Or why wouldn't Pestell have simply sold Prostagene and become a billionaire, then bought a significant portion of CYDY if he was interested?
The sum is simply greater than the parts. Don't forget that the Prostagene acquisition included Pestell's IP as well. That's the IP/patents around using CCR5 inhibitors for cancer, in particular...
He thinks that CCR5 inhibition is a superior mechanism for treating metastatic cancer, and has the IP to protect that research for a time.
CytoDyn has an effective and safe CCR5 inhibitor, but is largely boxed out of studying it for cancer due to Pestell's IP.
So yeah, he could have sold Prostagene, or licensed out the test independently. He actually mentioned in the conference call Q&A on 9/13 that he was previously in discussions to license the test, and thought that things could proceed quickly post-acquisition. But where would that have left him? With a boat load of money, but without the compound he had researched for the past two years in conjunction with his cancer IP. Now, he has a significant share of the company that has his preferred CCR5 inhibitor, and he's the CMO. He brought over the IP that allows his research to use that compound. And he/they can license the test - on the cheap if need be - to fund the necessary trials.
Everyone should relax. And you should ask yourself this...
If he gave up full ownership of the diagnostic test and his IP for ~10% of CytoDyn, what must he think CytoDyn is worth?
No requirement whatsoever. Pourhassan has basically said in the past that you’ll know there are negotiations when a deal is signed.
In theory, a significant group of shareholders could try to influence the process, but that typically only happens with activist investment group types. For which CYDY would make an extremely attractive target if anyone were paying attention.
Thanks to both you and Zeuss for the updates. Very much appreciate the boots on the ground!
I feel there should be some sort of “negligent libel” charge to cover that. I don’t know if that exists. You’d have to ask a bored lawyer.
I maintain he probably knew about the FDA guidance, as well as the other factual inaccuracies as stated by Dr. Pourhassan. Who cares? It’s just bashing a small company trading on the OTC that’s trying hard to make breakthroughs in fighting several severe and potentially unmet medical needs, right??
That was sarcasm, by the way. Tough to tell on these forums at times. I’m a little salty after that call. Nothing to do with you, of course.
You’re spot on, but I believe that you miss in your assumption that the author is unfamiliar. I strongly doubt that. It’s simple - and rather bald - intellectual dishonesty, intended to separate the less well-informed from their shares and/or lower the share price to cover short positions.
Is been surprisingly effective so far, despite the patent falsehoods and misstatements.