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.
Yes skiguy is silence_twain (on SeekingAlpha) and has admitted to that alias. He is (or was) still denying that he is Adam Feuerstein.
jay10 -
Drano - "Question about options: if STSI were to spin off a company to deal with, for instance, a royalty stream from e-cigarettes, what would happen to option holders? Would they have to exercise the options early (at a loss, probably) to get any benefit from that? Or would the options be re-priced somehow?"
If the spin off was on a 1 to 1 ratio and resulted in two publicly traded companies with an equal number of outstanding shares, I believe that you would be issued an equal number of shares and/or options for the spin off company as you owned in the original company. The market would then determine the pricing of each...
None! If you put the slimy lizard on ignore...
Response to Skiguy/alias Silencetwain/ alias Fuerstein/ alias ??? - I know that facts and logic are not your "cup of tea" but this one is really pretty simple...
Skiguy -
FIFY
Skiguy/alias Silencetwain/alias Fuerstein/alias ??? -
"They got AT LEAST $5 million. Reynolds could not have made it any clearer."
FIFY
Skiguy/alias Silencetwain/alias Fuerstein/alias ??? -
"fugly"... This was a new one on me. I like it! I am glad I googled it though. I wrongly assumed that it was a combination of "fun" and "ugly".
From the PR - "Megha Verma of the Roskamp Institute delivered the poster presentation titled, "Anti-Inflammatory and Amyloid Beta Lowering Properties of Anatabine in a Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease", in which scientists reported that anatabine treated Alzheimer's mice retained their memory and learning compared to the untreated Alzheimer's mice."
So the previous peer reviewed study showed that anatabine inhibited the plaque formation found in the brains of patients afflicted with alzheimers disease. And now they have proven that inhibiting the plaque formation does correlate with improved cognitive function! Incidentally, the studies with bexarotene appear to confirm this plaque/memory/cognitive function relationship. I think the official results of the on-going human study being conducted by Roskamp are probably still months away. But that study could be a game changer for the treatment of alzheimers disease. If I had someone close to me with the disease, they would be taking at least 9 pills a day. As I recall, 9 is the dosage being taken by the current study participants.
Bexarotene/Anatabloc partnership?
Both of the articles linked by skiguy/alias-sliencetwain/alias-feurstein/alias-??? are talking about a cancer drug, Bexarotene. First take a look at that list of side effects for Bexarotene that I reprinted for your convenience below. And even though Bexarotene is already on the market, they are saying that it will be 5 to 7 years before it can approved for use on alzheimers patients. The funny thing is that it has been on the market for a while now and in fact, the patent expires next year.
Besides the side effects, there's this from one of the articles; "If a phase I clinical trial was to start today, it still would take five to seven years before ReXceptor could finish testing the drug in Alzheimer's patients and win FDA approval to start selling bexarotene for use in treating Alzheimer's, said Michael Haag, a technology transfer official at CWRU who is serving as ReXceptor's CEO. And there's no telling whether the drug will make it through clinical trials or whether the company will attract the “hundreds of millions of dollars” that will be needed to complete all of them, Mr. Haag said."
Given these facts, this is actually even more of an opportunity for Star than it might appear at first blush. 1) Anatabloc is extremely safe with no negative side effects. 2) Anatabloc is available now and human trials are already underway, and 3) This is a perfect opportunity for this drug company to partner with Star.
I believe that Anatabloc would, at a minimum, reduce many of Bexarotene's negative side effects. The half life of Bexarotene in the human body is 7 hours, very similiar to anatabine. And by combining Bexarotene with a anatabine, they are creating another patentable substance. Both companies would benefit. This is a perfect example of the kind of "improved and re-patentable" drug that Nuke John has spoken of before.
From skiguy/alias-sliencetwain/alias-feurstein/alias-???
New from Patrick Cox
PC - "In fact, this process, which takes about 80% of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNs) out of smokable tobacco, is in near-universal use today, as Reynolds has licensed the technology widely."
Someone had previously asked if RJR had licensed their Peele Patent to the other BigTs and nobody responded with an answer. This tidbit from PC seems to indicate that they had in fact done exactly that. Of course we now know from CAFC and the USPTO that RJR's Peele Patent is predated by Star's patent. So apparently RJR also needed to find a way to protect that revenue stream which the CAFC ruling put in serious jeopardy. Additionally, RJR might have ended up having to refund any revenue received from the other BigTs for their "use" of the Peele Patent. This would have put a whole new spin on the settlement negotiations and on the amount of leverage Star had in those negotiations.
For instance, if the writ was denied then Star proceeds to sue the other BigTs who will then question why they are paying RJR. If the writ is granted and then somehow against all reason, the SC decides to invalidate Star's Patents; then the technology is available to all for free and the BigTs no longer need access to the Peele Patent. Now it really begins to make sense as to why RJR wanted/needed to get serious about a mediated settlement. In this scenario, the writ was just a ploy, a tool to leverage a more favorable settlement from Star. But if RJR and Star are now partners in this TSNA arena, the other BigTs will be paying and Star will be benefiting.
It's late and I may have missed something. But the possibilities for this settlement just keep getting better and better. I think I'll see my banker tomorrow about borrowing some money...
skiguy/alias-silencetwain/alias-feurstein/alias-??? - "When something material happens, you must file with the SEC."
That is correct. And according to the SEC's 8K safe harbor regulations, material definitive agreements "must" be included with the next quarterly report. So if something fitting the definition of a material definitive agreement happened in September, we will see it in Star's 3rd quarter report in about 3 weeks. Unless we get a PR sooner or it shows up in RAI's quarterly report next week.
skiguy/alias-silencetwain/alias-feurstein/alias-??? - "The gag order is a red herring put forth by STSI to distract you from the fact that they got nothing."
Yeah right, and Dr. Ladenson and Dr. Mullen are co-conspirators in Jonnie William's great Anatabloc "snake oil" scam. You are growing increasingly transparent with your obfuscation. The time draws nigh when your lies and hedge fund FUD will be exposed and obvious to even the uninformed.
Thanks strader. You saved me the trouble. I try to remember that he's only doing what he's paid to do. But it sure makes him look like an idiot.
Skiguy calls it "snakeoil". Lil Green Bullshit and Gordo Gekko think you should sell. Meanwhile the scientific case in support of anatabine marches on. Amazing that so many professionals in the research and medical professions are proudly presenting on their work with this "snake oil" to treat an increasing number of diseases/conditions. Below is a brief summary of the latest PR from Star regarding the research efforts of the Roskamp Institute. (Thanks for the original post forti1v! You beat me to it.)
There are 32000 neuroscientists in attendance at the 42nd annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. The Roskamp Institute has MULTIPLE high level staff delivering MULTIPLE presentations on...ANATABINE. They are delivering presentations on treating multiple types of Traumatic Brain Injury. Additionally they are delivering the results of their "research examining the potential benefit of anatabine for alleviating symptoms associated with Multiple Sclerosis". And they will also present NEW "research on anatabine's effect on Alzheimer's Disease at the conference."
Bungler - "So at this time, the legal status is the patents have not been shown to be invalid based on prior art and are conclusively not indefinite under 35 USC 112."
Thank you Bungler! So theoretically someone could possibly find and produce new evidence to challenge validity based on "prior art". However, the question of indefiniteness regarding those patents is settled for all time. That's good to know!
lil green bullshit - "big tobacco on the move."
And now you're on the move... To Iggyland.
gd6991 -
lil green bullshit - "ive just been convinced this is not a stock to be long."
So you've "just" been convinced? What about your post of a week ago? Well anyway, thank you for your concern. I'm sure that we're all going to sell our STSI shares now that you've opened our eyes. Your work here is done. You can go back to the AvStar board now.
New on PACER
I saw where another poster on Yahoo referred to additional settlement conferences being posted on PACER so I looked for myself. There were indeed three additional settlement conferences entered into the docket on October 5th. The conferences themselves occurred Aug. 21st, Aug. 29th, and Sept. 14th. The docket indicates that, just like the one held on Aug. 6th, each of these additional “Settlement Conferences” was held “before Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey.” So in a little less than 6 weeks, 4 separate “settlement conferences” occurred in the presence of Judge Gauvey.
So what do we know?
1) A two day settlement conference was originally scheduled for the 21st and 22nd of August.
2) We were all surprised to learn that a settlement conference occurred on August 6th, over two weeks earlier than anticipated.
3) Now we discover that a conference also occurred as originally scheduled on the 21st of August and that two more supervised settlement conferences occurred over the next three and a half weeks.
To me, this level of dialogue indicates that some serious discussions were being conducted. If RJR was participating with a hard-nosed “go away or else” attitude, there would NOT have been much to discuss. If Star was just a nuisance case, then what was there to talk about?
Since there were 4 separate supervised conferences, there were probably dozens (if not hundreds) of phone calls between the parties and quite possibly some meetings without the judge present. IMHO, the fact that there were 4 Settlement Conferences CONDUCTED by Judge Gauvey is an indication that something major has transpired.
The shorts would have us believe that these 4 settlement conferences occurred in the presence of the judge and then Star threw in the towel and walked away with nothing. I think that is EXTREMELY unlikely. I also think that the shorts are in for quite a surprise because for STSI, this is going to be GOOD…
skiguy - "This would be an odd thing to put in a filing if the attorney fees were not being contested."
Not really. RJR had to keep up the charade.
Annual Shareholders Meeting (ASM) Don't sweat it! Tomorrow I will probably be asking someone to explain an abbreviation.
Edited to add - And RANPBR means Read All New Posts Before Responding. If I had RANPBRed, I would have known that Lief had already answered your question...
Agreed. They will not fumble the ball at this stage.
I asked Talhia last week when the ASM was going to be. She said probably the first week in December but that due to everything else competing for her time, she had not yet confirmed the arrangements (such as venue). I have been planning to attend, but the first Friday in December is a huge conflict for me. I told her if it made any difference, I would prefer the second week in December. Now that she knows, I'm sure she will move it to the second Friday in December... I hope to see you there!
skiguy - "My guess (pure guess) is that Star agreed not to pursue Reynolds any more in court and Reynolds agreed to drop their claim to the $35 million they wanted for legal fees."
You persist in this argument even though attorney's fees were not an issue. RJR used that false issue as an excuse to get Star into court ordered mediation. RJR did not want to appear to be going to Star "hat in hand" and used this as cover. Given that CAFC reversed most of the District Court ruling, RJR was never going to be awarded attorney's fees. But CAFC settled the attorney's fees question when it issued this ruling, "AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART Each party shall bear its own costs."
The mediated settlement conference was NOT about attorneys fees. Therefore, Star had NO reason to walk away empty-handed. We'll know what they walked away with in a few weeks...
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1183.pdf
skiguy - "That being said, given STSI's past of releasing press releases on everything possible, I cannot imagine how they would not have put something out by now at the very least giving an update on the situation."
@skiguy - That is incorrect. One of my complaints with management is that they do NOT make full use of the free promotion that can be generated through the issuance of PRs. It has now been over three weeks since the company issued a PR. They did not even issue a PR for the peer reviewed article from Johns Hopkins being published in the journal "Endo". That was only the second peer reviewed article on their primary product and no PR? This company has to be the most reserved, non-self promoting company I've ever seen.
Given your history of denigrating anything and anybody associated with Star, I suppose the inaccuracy of your statement about Star's PRs is to be expected. Similiarly, I am also not surprised that your "pure guess" about the settlement is negative. But my "pure guess" is that your analysis of the settlement will turn out to be just as flawed as your reference to anatabine as "snakeoil".
One thing is for sure, the truth is coming. And the wait will not be as long as it has been. When that day arrives, perhaps you will tell us who you really work for...
8K Filing Requirement?
Someone posted yesterday that according to Talhia, Star did not feel that litigation/settlement created an 8K requirement. Star has a law firm that specializes in SEC matters, so I'm sure that they are complying as necessary.
8Ks are not my strong suit so I did some checking today. I did not see anything that was specifically on point. However, I did find this item that indicates that there may be an SEC provided "safe harbor" on the 8K requirement as long as Star provides full disclosure in the next quarterly report. The info below is from www.smithlaw.com/publications/SecAlert0607041.pdf
Excerpt - (1) The company will be protected from liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for a failure to timely file a Form 8-K under specified item requirements, subject to certain conditions and exceptions.
Because the new filing requirements and shortened filing deadline require management to make a relatively real-time determination regarding the materiality of an event or whether a disclosure obligation has been triggered, the SEC adopted a safe harbor provision from public and private actions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for late filings under certain Form 8-K item requirements. The safe harbor applies to Form 8-K reports triggered under:
• Item 1.01—Entry into a material definitive agreement (There are others but they are not germain to this post)
Under the safe harbor, the failure to file a report that is required solely pursuant to the specified item requirements of Form 8-K will not be deemed to be a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Basically, this means that the failure to timely file itself will not trigger such liability (i.e., on the grounds that the information was required to be disclosed sooner by the form), but the safe harbor will not relieve the company from liability arising under any other duty to disclose the subject information separate from the Form 8-K item requirement. Also, the safe harbor does not cover any material misstatements or omissions contained in a late filing, and such disclosure would continue to be subject to liability under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5. The safe harbor extends only to the due date of the next periodic report of the company that would be due after the Form 8-K was required to be filed. This means that if the company fails to file a Form 8-K triggered by one of the items listed above, the company must report the required information in the periodic report covering the period during which the triggering event occurred or the company will no longer be able to rely on the safe harbor for its failure to file the information on Form 8-K.
@Drano & Abnisk - I think you are both saying the same thing which is...
If everything were completed and finalized between Star and RJR, there would be no need to post the attorney change. Therefore, "everything" is not "completed and finalized". And that could be why there is still no 8K.
gd6991 - "...judging strictly by stock price it doesn't look like Star won anything."
1) The stock price could mean that the settlement was bad for Star and somebody is trading on insider info. 2) It could also mean that the settlement is good for Star, but insider knowledge is allowing some of the big boys to push the stock down so they can buy in cheap. 3) Or, and I think this is most likely, it's because the uncertainty is allowing the "short" manipulation to continue.
It could be that there are some who are trading STSI on insider knowledge. But with a major announcement pending, you've got to think that the SEC will be watching. On the other hand, the SEC seems to let the big boys get away with a lot.
The key to this situation appears to be the uncertainty. And it's rare that uncertainty regarding a major event will support a rising stock price...
At least one of the regular posters on Yahoo quoted Talhia as saying it was a court imposed gag order. If indeed there is still a judicial gag order in force, I interpret that as good for Star.
If the proceeding are over and Star got little or nothing, then why would there be a need for a gag order? On the other hand, if the RJR and Star have agreed to terms that are conditional on the outcome of some other negotiation, then there would be a need to keep everything under wraps until those negotiations are concluded.
For example, Star and RJR agree to settle the cases, but the final terms may be "X" or they may be "Y"; conditional on the responses of the other BigTs to an invitation to sign on to a "global resolution". The cases can be dismissed immediately, but the final terms will be subject to other conditions which are yet to be determined.
I'm sure there are other possible scenarios, but I can't think of one that would be negative for Star that reveals a reason for the court to impose a gag order.
Another thought... The conditions included in the dismissal document seem designed to head off speculation that RJR "lost" the negotiations. There are 4 stipulations and all are not "required" for the purposes of this document. #2 says that it "is not an acknowledgement of liability" and #4 is specific to RJR in saying that RJR reserves the right to "rely on final judgement" etc. It would seem that both of these could be included in the "final" settlement document rather than the dismissal.
I would think including them is primarily protective PR for RJR. Only the one who is worried about the perception of having "lost" would be interesting in such wordsmithing.
Short Sale Circuit Breaker
Star apparently triggered this circuit breaker...
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=ShortSaleCircuitBreaker
The SEC adopted amendments to Regulation SHO with a compliance date of November 10, 2010. Among the rule changes, the SEC introduced Rule 201 (Alternative Uptick Rule), a short sale-related circuit breaker that when triggered, will impose a restriction on prices at which securities may be sold short. The SEC also issued guidance for broker-dealers wishing to mark certain qualifying orders “short exempt.”
More info...
Specifically, the Rule requires that a trading center establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution or display of a short sale order of a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to the current national best bid if the price of that covered security decreases by 10% or more from the covered security’s closing price as determined by the listing market for the covered security as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day. In addition, the Rule requires that the trading center establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to impose this short sale price test restriction for the remainder of the day and the following day when a national best bid for the covered security is calculated and disseminated on a current and continuing basis by a plan processor pursuant to an effective national market system plan. We believe it is appropriate at this time to adopt a short sale-related circuit breaker because, when triggered, it will prevent short selling, including potentially manipulative or abusive short selling,from driving down further the price of a security that has already experienced a significant intra-day price decline, and will facilitate the ability of long sellers to sell first upon such a decline. This approach establishes a narrowly-tailored Rule that will target only those securities that are experiencing significant intra-day price declines. We believe that addressing short selling in connection with such declines in individual securities will help address erosion of investor confidence in our markets generally.
What is the most logical settlement outcome?
I’ve been trying to envision the most logical settlement outcome that matches up with the facts as we know them, or rather, the facts as I see them. Keep in mind that this is JMHO and speculation but I think it provides plausible explanations for why things have happened the way they did. So, what are those facts?
1) We’ll estimate the worst case outcome for RJR if they lose at trial in Star 2, at $3.9 billion dollars for past damages plus an ongoing $232 million (6 cents per pack) royalty. That is figuring 6 cents per pack for 8 years past damages, plus an additional three years of treble damages. i.e. One year has passed since CAFC ruled on validity and it will take at least two years to litigate Star 2. And if they lose in District Court, RJR would have to post the entire amount with the court as a bond before they would be allowed to appeal.
2) Best case outcome for RJR is that they win again at trial in Star 2 despite the patents being valid, the independent attorney’s testimony that RJR is infringing, and CAFC’s drawing Star a roadmap for how to prove validity.
3) Worst case outcome for Star is that despite the advantages listed in number 2, Star spends millions more on attorney’s fees and loses again in a Garbis court. Although they would probably again receive favorable treatment at CAFC, losing again at the District Court level would not be a good outcome.
4) Best case outcome for Star, not surprisingly, is RJR’s worst case. Star gets a $3.9 billion dollar judgement.
5) RJR wanted this mediation. The attorney’s fees issue was a smokescreen to hide the fact that they wanted to settle. Since every finding at the District Court level other than infringement was overturned by CAFC, RJR knew they were never going to get attorney’s fees. But they did not want to be seen as going hat in hand to Star either.
6) Cigarette labeling of TSNA amounts is happening soon.
7) If plaintiffs in smoker lawsuits get hold of testimony from RJR’s experts saying that they were not infringing on Star’s patents and the evidence of non-infringement is the higher TSNA levels in RJR tobacco for the last 10 years; the costs to RJR will be FAR greater than $3.9 billion.
8) Star has a brand new 20 year patent on a process for producing tobacco with Below Detectable Limit (BDL) TSNAs.
I think number 8 is the key to what we are witnessing now. Star’s new BDL patent was not a part of the lawsuits that were dismissed. RJR needed to be able to save face and they needed to get out from under Star’s valid patents. The compromise is that RJR licenses the BDL patent for the next 20 years and Star agrees not to pursue Star 2. RJR can then brag about licensing Star’s BDL technology to produce the safest tobacco in the world. After all, saving lives and preserving health is THE priority. But in order to make this partnership work, the leadership at these two socially responsible companies had to agree to put the past behind them so they could work together to make safer products available to the tobacco consuming public. Given the hard fought battle that these companies have been engaged in for 10 years, it is a testament to the character of the men involved that they were able to put that aside for the greater good. (To Star and RJR – Feel free to use that exact language in your PRs if you wish. Just do it soon!)
If I were doing the public relations, I would stage a media event where JW and Daniel Delen are smiling, shaking hands, and all excited about the partnership and what it will mean to tobacco consumers. I would do it at about 10 am on a weekday. (Think trading halt.)
This also explains why RJR was willing to drop the Writ. RJR did not want to take a chance (even a small chance) that the SC would take up the case and end up reversing the CAFC validity ruling. Because now RJR wants Star to go after the other BigTs for violating those “valid” patents.
To summarize: Star trades revenue from the old patents for revenue from the new BDL patent and RJR is able to say that they still do not believe they were infringing on the old patents. Star now uses the lessons learned from the RJR battle to pursue the other BigTs; assuming those BigTs do not quickly make a deal with Star similar to the RJR deal.
Misc. Items:
1) Are Star’s smokeless products part of the deal?
2) Will this deal on the BDL patent be exclusive to RJR and not available to the other BigTs?
3) Why the delay in announcing the settlement details?
Ø The final copy of the dismissal with the judge’s signature was just filed today. Is that what they were waiting on?
Ø Or is an effort being made to bring in the other BigTs? It could be that RJR wants this as a competitive advantage and does not want the other BigTs to have it. Or it could be that RJR would prefer that everyone participate so as to level the playing field cost-wise and to raise the public perception of the tobacco industry. Or it could be that exclusivity was not on the table and this point was non-negotiable for Star.
4) HOW MUCH MONEY?
Ø Is it an annual fee?
Ø Is it based on a per pack fee? If so, how much per pack?
Ø Is there an initial lump sum?
5) Does RJR get an equity stake in Star and if so, how much? Also, if an equity stake in Star is part of the deal and it is being offered to the other BigTs; then the other BigTs need to sign on prior to the RJR announcement. This could be a factor in the delay of the settlement announcement and the reason for the gag order.
I cannot wait to see how close my speculation is to the real thing! I don’t think we’ll have long to wait…
That's what I was trying to warn people about. In a few days, STSI will make new highs and $3.50 will be a distant memory. But unless those poor unfortunates who were stopped out re-establish their positions; they will be watching it from the sidelines.
Stop Losses and Bear Raids
If you have been following the Star message boards for any length of time, you have been warned about using stop losses. I’m sure most of you know what stop losses are, as well as how and why they’re used. But in recent weeks I have been asked to explain them on two occasions by people I thought would have known. So given the environment in which we currently find ourselves with STSI, I thought I would post on this topic just in case there is someone who needs this information.
There was probably a time when automatic stop losses were a good thing much of the time. In fact, several paid services/advisors made them a cornerstone of their “system”. By setting a “stop loss”, you were limiting the amount you could “lose” on a particular investment and freeing up that money to reinvest elsewhere. If that stock price dropped to your pre-set stop loss, your order was filled, your stock sold, and your losses limited. But in today’s world of in-depth market knowledge and high frequency program trading, using stop losses for small to mid-cap stocks sets you up to lose.
If you are long a stock such as STSI; the manipulators, market makers, hedge funds, and shorts are your enemies. You never want to give your enemies any more knowledge than you absolutely must. If they know where you (and others like you) are willing to sell, then they can manipulate the price down to get your shares. Maybe they want to buy your shares or maybe they just want to use your sell order to help them drive down the price; but regardless you end up out of your long position for a loss.
Whether it’s STSI or some other small or mid-cap stock; IF YOU ARE USING AUTOMATIC STOP LOSSES THEN YOU ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP TO FAIL! If you still want to use stop losses, keep them in your head and enter them when the price reaches your target. There are also other ways to hedge your position such as with options.
We have seen this scenario time and time again with STSI. During the day, they drive the stock price down substantially but then it recovers, often on the same day. However, I believe today’s price action is different. I believe that we are in the beginning phases of a bear raid. If they do not make another push to drive the price down this afternoon, they will keep it near current levels or below and launch another short attack tomorrow. Also, expect some strong FUD (fear, uncertainty, & doubt) material to appear. The last time the shorts needed some serious help, their friends with Bloomberg News published a completely fraudulent report that Star was about to be delisted from NASDAQ. There were ONLY 13 million official shorts back then, now we have 25 million shorts who do not plan to go gently into that sweet night.
Be mindful, STSI has been a playground for manipulators and shorts for a long time. And it’s surprising how often it happens that in the days leading up to a good news announcement for a company, their share price plummets on rumors of “bad news”. This gives the big boys a chance to acquire a position, or cover a short position, at a good price. They are not supposed to have inside info, but isn’t it amazing how things always seem to work out for them.
So remember the reason you bought and held the stock in the first place. Is it more likely that the “bad news” is true, or that someone wants your shares because you were right in the first place? Whether you know it or not, you are playing in the big leagues now; but even the big leagues have playground bullies that want to steal your lunch money. Don’t be scared out a stock that you believe in, just at the time when good news may be pending…
GLTAL
This is from a.mary377 on Yahoo. Has anyone heard of Sierra World Equity Review?
Sierra World Equity Review is predicting that Star Scientific (STSI) will start moving up sharply now after the announcement of an apparent settlement of it's patent suit with RJ Reynolds. Sierra believes shareholders of STSI are in for a very nice surprise, in Sierra's opinion STSI may have received a significant financial settlement. Accurate and independent Sierra World Equity Review made more more correct calls in the last 2 months than all other Stock Reviews COMBINED. Sierra World Equity Review currently hold no positions in Star Scientific (STSI)
MineAllMine - "I thought there would be more buzz and share price impact."
3.7 million shares traded so far when the average for the last 10 days is 1.4 million. I'd say there is some significant "buzz". Unfortunately, the lack of a PR providing details is allowing the shorts to continue to play their games. Without the additional manufactured shares, I believe we would be up substantially. If this settlement is even mildly favorable to Star, it could be a big problem for 25 million shorts.
550,000 thousand shares dumped in the first 7 minutes of trading today. Over 300,000 shares dumped in 4 minutes at noon. It will be very interesting to see how big the "fails to deliver" will be for today. Last August when Anatabloc was launched, the "fails to deliver" were in the millions of shares for the next 2 days.
How do I know it's shorts? Because no knowledgable long who is in it for the tobacco litigation is going to capitulate when it appears that the win they have been waiting for is at hand. Besides, the most "knowledgeable" longs are in it for the Anatabloc and would not sell regardless of the BigT outcome.
It's just more short manipulation. One can almost predict that there will be another dump to begin the concerted effort to drive the price down below $4 at the close.
But be thankful! This may be one of the last chances you have to get STSI near $4 per share....
skiguy - "Of course, STSI will have to prove that Reynolds changed their curing process between time periods."
Not true. Star simply has to convince a jury that RJR has been, and/or is, infringing in the time period of the new lawsuit. And thanks to Star one, the district court and CAFC have established a "road map" of what Star has to prove to win the infringement argument. With valid patents and the "Peele Patent" in the garbage bin, I like Star's chances.
BTW - I'm still in it for the Anatabloc! (Or, as you like to refer to it, that "snake oil" that JW and Johns Hopkins is trying to purvey.)
jeremychang - "We all know how it would benefit RJR (withdrawal would like better than an SC denial in Star" (Did you mean "look better"?)
I do not believe that this is correct. It doesn't matter how withdrawal "looks". RJR is unlikely to be able to contest validity in Star II. Whether it was denial of the writ or taking dismissal does not matter on this point. RJR cannot "make the argument" in Star II "well, the question of validity did not go to the SC so the patents are not really valid." I cannot think of ANY benefit regarding Star II that RJR gains by dismissing the writ. I cannot think of ANY benefit period that RJR gains thru this dismissal. Yes the writ was a long shot, but why invest the money in pursuing the writ only to drop it at the 11th hour before finding out if the long shot will come in? Settlement is the only logical reason that I can think of. I would welcome any informed discussion of this question.
The only possible exception I can think of is if RJR discovered new evidence. And I'm not even sure that "new evidence" would be allowed. (Res judicata?) Perhaps one of the attorneys will weigh in on this question.
Med.rare - "received my free facial cream in my order last night"
Two questions:
1) What type of order? Auto-ship? Wholesale?
2) If auto-ship, approximately when did you start doing the auto-ship?
Thanks...
Goodbuddy - "Just bought more a few minutes ago..
We must be getting some information soon. Looks like it will return to $5 Bucks. More than that on real positive news.
Note: Just got my sugar free tablets. Going to increase my dosage. Attempting to get rid of this stupid Rosacea on my Nose!"
Good luck Goodbuddy! ...on all fronts.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes on your Rosacea. If we were doing a pool, I'd say you will notice improvement by COB this Friday.
MineAllMine - "any theories as to why this is going up today?"
OPEX is this week and max-pain is $4; so market makers want it to close at $4 on Friday.
Also, the interim results for the Flint Study are suppose to be in this week...
Excellent! It looks like they are continuing to expand the moat; working to insure the protection of our future revenue streams. Oh yeah...
@ebstat - I am having issues with Yahoo's new message boards. If you can, you should post this information over there.