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.
Additional Per Wold Olsen background.
When appointed to the board in January, I thought Per's expertise was primarily hearing aids given his role as Chairman of the Board at GN Store Nord since 2008. And that's OK, looking at their success and growth since then, see e.g. https://www.gn.com/Investor/Investment-case.
Digging deeper since his appointment as COB, I feel reassured that he can competently steer Amarin moving forward after seeing his deep experience at Merck particularly during the development of statins. I hadn't previously known Merck was a key player in statin development until reading the very interesting Feb 2016 Circulation Research article "The Success Story of LDL Cholesterol Lowering" by Terje R. Pedersen.
Mevinolin turned out to be effective with few adverse effects, and in 1983, formal clinical trials were started again. Because of the patent conflict with Sankyo who maintained the patent for mevinolin in 30 countries, Merck developed synvinolin, later to become simvastatin and mevinolin changed name to lovastatin. Both drugs were approved by Food and Drug Administration and came on the market in 1987, simvastatin was first marketed in Sweden.
In 1987, it was becoming known that statins would become available on the market within short. Because of the cholesterol controversy, I urged the director of Merck in Scandinavia, Per Wold Olsen to perform a large clinical trial with all-cause mortality as the primary end point rather than any other type of study. Olsen was able to convince Merck Research Laboratories to perform the trial in the Nordic countries, based on a draft protocol I had hastily put together. After having recruited every university hospital in the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden in addition to several nonteaching clinical centers (94 in total) for the study, the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) was initiating recruitment of patients in February 1988.
Another weakness with Merck is that too much power is given to scientists in decision-making of candidate drugs. The MRL [Merck Research Labs] was somewhat the main decision-makers in organizing the drug development process including final say on whether Phase V or post-evaluation drug studies could be used. MRL, at one time, did not show a lot of emphasis on Phase V and wanted to move on after Phase III. Figures like Per Wold-Olsen, President of Human Health Europe, had to fight to get approval and funding for Phase V research.
The third weakness is the inadequacies and lack of communication between marketing and research. For instance, Zocor, a drug for reducing cholesterol, went through a dramatic saga that ended up becoming a fiasco for Merck. Their was a conflict between outside Scandinavian doctors and the MRL to run a Phase V study on Zorcor’s effect’s on the mortality and morbidity of patients with coronary heart disease (Gilbert and Sarkar 7). Per Wold-Olsen, who was head of marketing with Merck, fought and got the post-marketing study approved which was called the Zocor 4S study or the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Although the study showed that the drug lowered mortality and morbidity, Pfizer was able to take the cholesterol market when along with Warner-Lambert came out with Lipitor. Lipitor was twice as effective with dosage use being half than Zocar. Pfizer’s drug had more success in reducing cholesterol and decreasing triglycerides. Lipitor’s success caused Pfizer to increase its sales force from 2,800 to 4,200 representatives. Pfizer spent 50% more on promotions or DTC marketing strategies than Merck. Pfizer also had 28% of new prescriptions than Zocar’s 27% (Gilbert and Sarkar 8). The sales received from Lipitor, enabled Pfizer to buy Warner-Lambert and Lipitor for $116 billion in 2000. Merck failed to use marketing and advertising when necessary Zocar. Merck’s marketing and research needed to realize that the making of the drug is not only the most important part in increasing sales, but it also included a strong advertising campaign that will satisfy the needs of the customers.
North, thanks for some interesting historical perspective.
I was one of the last classes in college learning FORTRAN to have our programs submitted to the mainframe via punchcards, circa 1982-82!
Also, compound semiconductors is my specialty.
-dogn
North, yes the recent application in question is one of 4 continuation applications:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/423,987 filed May 28, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/718,986 filed May 21, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/909,555 filed Jun. 4, 2013, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/655,890, filed on Jun. 5, 2012, the entire contents of each of which are incorporated herein by reference and relied upon.
Thanks for the suggestion. I do know this can be done in Microsoft word with track changes features. Just have not had time to try it yet. Maybe tomorrow.
d
North,
Glad you are looking into this. I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, but have a couple patents and so do find IP issues interesting. BTW, my son is a 2016 Northwestern grad (Computer Science)…some of your bios say you’re a NW grad (one said Northeastern).
dogn
Very confused to search for “Preston Mason Patent” and find what appears to be the identical patent application with a Dec. 5, 2013 filing date and different application #:
U.S. patent application number 13/909555 was filed with the patent office on 2013-12-05 for methods of treating hypercholesterolemia. The applicant listed for this patent is Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. Invention is credited to Richard Preston Mason.
https://uspto.report/patent/app/20130324607
I did not thoroughly compare for differences but on cursory glance they look to be the same.
Kiwi, thanks for link also. I’ve never looked into Lovaza studies (and controversies leading to removal from EU market if I understand correctly, or why still FDA approved). Given that V TRx appear soon to fall below gL scripts, seems a good time to reignite this discussion and explore further.
Dogn
Kiwi, thanks. Yes to all your assumptions. Congratulations on your great success… that is remarkably low LDL
Dogn
Good question. Aren’t many meds known to improve biomarkers conventionally associated with CVD health RX’d w/o a CVOT? Did Lovaza undergo a CVOT?
Kiwi,
“Re the earlier post U made .
HDL around 40 is no big deal from what I've read ...and very hard to elevate .
What were your LDL numbers and family history etc ?”
Actually just got my blood work from last physical exam in the mail. Your question reminded me to check last results I had a copy of to compare:
Total Cholesterol 165
(down from 172 in 2019)
Triglycerides 58
(down from 85 in 2019)
HDL 37
(up from 31 in 2019)
Ratio 4.5
(down from 5.5 in 2019)
LDL (calc.) 116 (range 30-100)
(down from 124 in 2019)
Interesting that I had been taking a Triple Omega DS for years, discontinued after reading it can raise LDL; hard to know if decrease from discontinuation or improved diet, weight, exercise…maybe bit of both.
No real family history other than a great grandfather died of a heart attack outside the an Ohio county courthouse at fairly old age; father died of CHF in 2015, was rather overweight however.
Feeling blessed with overall good health.
dogn
Dukesking,
There is a trial mentioned under examples, but looks to me to be a prior one (Anchor or Marine?)
“A multi-center, placebo-controlled randomized, double-blind, 12-week study with an open-label extension is performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AMR101 in patients with fasting triglyceride levels ≥500 mg/dL. The primary objective of the study is to determine the efficacy of AMR101 2 g daily and 4 g daily, compared to placebo, in lowering fasting TG levels in patients with fasting TG levels ≥500 mg/dL and ≤1500 mg/dL (≥5.65 mmol/L and ≤16.94 mmol/L).
Not a patent expert. My opinion of goal was noted in my prior post: seek primary prevention label not requiring patients on maximally tolerated statins (or other agents) and perhaps better compete for generic Lovaza market. I’m not fully familiar however with what indication(s) Lovaza is approved for.
Thanks, Sleven. This is a new patent application (not yet awarded) which appears to be for primary prevention, treating HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA (to address CVD risk in broad patient population, also calls out diebetics), and looks to be aimed particularly at displacing Generic Lovaza market which is still comparable in size to current Vascepa RX.
I found it interesting the claim “The method of claim 1 wherein the subject is not on concomitant lipid-altering therapy”, and description from text “In one embodiment, a subject being treated in accordance with methods of the invention is not otherwise on lipid-altering therapy, for example statin, fibrate, niacin and/or ezetimibe therapy.”
I’ve often wondered about the efficacy of Vascepa for those not on statins. My 10 yr CVD risk is reaching where my doctor has recommended statins, due to increased age (59) and primarily now low HDL (37). HDL over 40 is considered good. Trying to raise via more high intensity exercise (cycling). But this patent could make folks like me eligible with final very broad claim, if it leads to a new label approval:
“16. The method of claim 1 wherein the subject has one or more of: a baseline non-HDL-C value of about 200 mg/dl to about 300 mg/dl; a baseline total cholesterol value of about 250 mg/dl to about 300 mg/dl; a baseline vLDL-C value of about 140 mg/dl to about 200 mg/dl; and/or a baseline HDL-C value of about 10 to about 80 mg/dl.”
62. Just as an apple cannot be called a pear, an omega-3 acid ethyl ester cannot be called fish oil. This Product is a fatty acid ethyl ester. Labeling and selling it as fish oil is false, misleading, deceptive and unlawful.
70. As demonstrated in great detail herein, Fish Oil and Omega-3 Acid Ethyl Esters are not the same. They are different on a molecular level and have different common and usual names.
https://www.classaction.org/media/baines-v-natures-bounty-ny-inc-et-al.pdf
I enjoyed reading this informative document that clearly explains why icosapent ethyl is not fish oil but a new synthetically derived molecule.
It appears this class action suit is still ongoing…
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/2:2021cv05330/469976
24. Defendant Nature’s Bounty Inc., is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in Ronkonkoma, New York. Nature’s Bounty is the flagship brand of The Bountiful Company, a family of wellness brands “committed to providing people with high quality products to complement their lifestyles and physical health.”3 NBI sells a variety of vitamins and supplements including the Product at issue in this litigation.
25. Defendant The Bountiful Company (“TBC”) is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Ronkonkoma, New York. TBC is a manufacturer, marketer and seller of vitamins, minerals, herbal and other specialty supplements. It owns several vitamin/supplement brands including Defendant Nature’s Bounty.
26. In August 2021, Nestle Health Science completed its acquisition of The Bountiful Company and its subsidiaries including NBI, for $5.75 billion.
Weekend reading on methods to increase bioavailability of EPA, key to a once daily formulation like Mochida’s MND-2119 which purportedly is Epadal + emulsifier (and which Amarin has partnered on for access).
Essential Fatty Acids as Biomedicines in Cardiac Health
Biomedicines. 2021 Oct; 9(10): 1466.
Published online 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101466
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8533423/
Very informative, comprehensive. Favorable coverage of Vascepa & REDUCE-IT.
Still waiting on Japanese approval of MND-2119 applied for last summer.
I believe there’s a good chance the combo statin - IPE pill will use a once daily formulation… if not MND-2119, there appear to be a number of other viable approaches (eg micro or nano encapsulants). Looking forward to new management making progress on lifecycle management and pipeline expansion including new indications.
Kiwi,
Share your sentiments about current market & long term risk/reward and added more past couple days, selling some XBI at small loss. Optimistic with now 20K shares (7.3% of portfolio). Time will tell how long we’re long…GLTA.
dogn
You don't buy 6% of the company and not have influence on the Board.
67654
rose, is the gv form of EPA the same as the V form? Often one is referred to icosapent ethyl and the other as ethyl ester. Are they one and the same? Do they metabolize the same? Not being a biochemist I’m ignorant as to the similarities, differences, etc.
Vascepa and gV are both Icosapent Ethyl (IPE), purified ethyl esters of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). Lovaza contains ethyl esters of both docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and EPA. IPE is sometimes called E-EPA (ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid, or ethyl eicosapentaenoate) and is chemical formula C22H34O2, molecular weight 330.512 g/mol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_eicosapentaenoic_acid
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4671468/
Alfonso G Zulueta "Chito" retired from top global roles at Eli Lilly in 2021 and is in demand as evidenced by 3 other new directorships this year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/15411089
Board Member
Glooko Inc
04/2022–PRESENT
Board Member
Calidi Biotherapeutics Inc
02/2022–PRESENT
Board Member
Syneos Health Inc
01/2022–PRESENT
Of great value with Amarin’s close partnership with Mochida is Chito’s Japanese relationships, experience,
Other Memberships
BOARD MEMBER
US-Japan Business Council
Career History
TITLE/COMPANY/TENURE
Senior VP/Pres:International
Eli Lilly & Co 02/2017–12/2021
Senior VP/Pres:Emerging Market
Eli Lilly & Co 01/2014–02/2017
Pres:Japan/General Manager
Eli Lilly Japan KK 07/2008–01/2014
and awards:
Lilly Senior Vice President and President of Lilly International, Alfonso “Chito” Zulueta, today received the Hyogo Prefecture Award from Governor Toshizo Ido (pictured, left). It is one of the Governor's highest awards, previously received by past Lilly CEO Dr. John Lechleiter. pic.twitter.com/vtvyJ8PmZ3
— Eli Lilly and Company (@EliLillyandCo) July 25, 2018
The graphical abstract provides the clearest summary
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2666667722000290-ga1_lrg.jpg
Highlights of article cited in Amarin’s Mon, May 16, 2022, 8:00 AM PR “Research Presented at the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions Indicate Potential for VASCEPA® (icosapent ethyl) to Reduce Major Adverse Cardiovascular (CV) Events and Associated Costs”
American Journal of Preventive Cardiology
Volume 10, June 2022, 100345
The potential population health impact of treating REDUCE-IT eligible US adults with Icosapent Ethyl
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667722000290
Highlights
• An estimated 3.6 million US adults are REDUCE-IT eligible.
• An estimated 212,000 ASCVD events over five years can be prevented with icosapent ethyl therapy.
• The estimated annual cost of treating all eligible US adults with icosapent ethyl is $5.5 billion.
• An estimated $1.8 billion could be saved annually from ASCVD events prevented.
“To treat all 3.6 million REDUCE-IT eligible US adults with IPE for one year is projected to cost $6.0 billion (UR $4.7-$7.5 billion; Table 3). Using a WAC estimate of $11.48/day, the annual IPE treatment cost would be $15.1 billion (UR $11.7-18.9 billion). Discounting the SSR Health cost by 20% to account for nonadherence to a daily cost of $3.67/day would result in a projected annual treatment cost of $4.8 billion (UR $3.8-6.0 billion). Assuming a weighted mean cost of $32,980 (95% CI $20,619-$45,341) per event and, by preventing 50,000 first ASCVD events with one year of IPE treatment, $1.8 billion in event costs annually could be prevented (UR $1.3-$2.2 billion; Table 4). With one year of IPE treatment, 97,000 total (first and recurrent) events could be prevented, averting $3.4 billion in event costs annually (UR $2.5-$4.2 billion).”
“In this analysis, we did not estimate direct costs for rehabilitation or skilled nursing stays, or the impact of IPE on outpatient medical costs or indirect costs. Indirect costs, which quantify in dollars the money lost to society by an illness, are difficult to estimate. Examples include lost wages due to loss of productivity, transportation to and from medical care, and changes in lifestyle choices after an illness (e.g., diet), family and professional caregiving, among others. The indirect cost inputs used in the current study ($6,318/person) include loss of wages from not working and home productivity loss from morbidity and premature mortality. The total indirect costs estimated in this study for the entire REDUCE-IT eligible population were $22.7 billion annually. Comparatively, the annual net burden of $4.3 billion to prevent first events (and net cost of $2.6 billion to prevent total events) for IPE treatment of all eligible individuals is relatively small. If even 5% of outpatient and indirect costs are prevented with one year of treatment, then IPE is a cost-saving therapy.”
“In conclusion, the current analysis shows that if our estimated 3.6 million REDUCE-IT eligible US adults were treated for five years with IPE, 212,000 first events and 490,000 total ASCVD events could be prevented. We estimate that one year of IPE treatment for all eligible US adults would cost the health care system $6.0 billion but save $1.8 billion due to first ASCVD events prevented, for a net cost of $4.2 billion. Annually, $3.4 billion from preventing 97,000 total events (first and recurrent) could be saved, resulting in a net burden of $2.6 billion for one year of IPE therapy. Outpatient and indirect costs likely outweigh much of the net cost of IPE therapy.”
Today’s % of Vol Shorted at 54.1% highest in long while, even higher than 39.5% on May 4 earnings day
https://nakedshortreport.com/company/AMRN
Nature Reviews - Cardiology
Review Article
Published: 17 May 2022
The need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular clinical trials
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-022-00705-w
Discusses & compares pragmatic cardiovascular randomized control trials (RCTs) of which MITIGATE is one of many
MITIGATE listed in Table 3 among other ongoing RCTs (but not directly discussed in article):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-022-00705-w/tables/3
Cert could CERTainly provide much needed rocket fuel to get us there. Thanks for all you do. Document looks masterful to me… well worth the shot!
North, whatever gets us North for a profitable exit. Wouldn't mind if SP keeps on going to the moon, as they say.
dogn
Lipid-Modifying Therapies and Stroke Prevention
Daniel G. Hackam & Robert A. Hegele
(Western University, London, Canada)
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, Published: 13 May 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-022-01197-4
“Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
Patients with elevated plasma triglycerides are at increased risk of ischemic stroke and other cardiovascular events [27]. Elevated plasma triglycerides are a complex and common phenotype, most often related to obesity and insulin resistance but also with a strong underlying polygenic component [27]. The atherogenicity of triglycerides is considered to be related to the cholesterol that is carried within apo B-containing triglyceride-rich lipoprotein particles [28] rather than triglyceride itself [29, 30]. Randomized trials of previous therapies directed towards reduction of plasma triglycerides—such as niacin and fibrates—have shown inconsistent evidence of reduction of cardiovascular endpoints, although these agents may still be useful in treatment of rare severe hypertriglyceridemia, the main risk of which is acute pancreatitis [31].
Icosapent ethyl is a highly purified and stable EPA ethyl ester that reduces serum triglycerides in patients with hypertriglyceridemia [11•]. The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) enrolled 8179 patients with established ASCVD or diabetes and other risk factors, who were taking statin therapy, and had a fasting triglyceride level of 135 to 499 mg/dL (1.52 to 5.63 mmol/L) and an LDL cholesterol of 41 to 100 mg/dL (1.06 to 2.6 mmol/L). The study population was randomly assigned to receive either 2 grams of icosapent ethyl taken twice daily or placebo [11•]. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina. The key secondary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke. During a median follow-up of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl reduced the risk of the primary outcome by 25% (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.83). The key secondary outcome was also reduced (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.83). Intriguingly, the incidence of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation or flutter was significantly increased in the icosapent ethyl group (3.1% vs 2.1%, P = 0.004) [11•], a finding that has been supported by a recent meta-analysis of long-term trials of marine-derived omega-3 fatty acids [32].
Despite this safety signal, icosapent ethyl reduced the risk of first fatal or non-fatal stroke by 28% (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93). Total strokes were also reduced (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91). Adjudicated ischemic stroke was lower in the icosapent ethyl group (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85) with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.93). There was no heterogeneity across any of the predefined subgroups for the effect of icosapent ethyl on ischemic stroke. Thus, the benefit of icosapent ethyl with respect to reduction of atherosclerosis risk, including stroke, far outweighs the borderline signal related to cardiac arrhythmia; the large observed net benefit is even more relevant since stroke is a potential risk of atrial fibrillation [33]. Tangentially, the large overall benefits observed in REDUCE-IT including reduced risk of stroke seem to be out of proportion to the relatively modest 20% reduction in triglycerides [11•]. Furthermore, the benefit related to reduced cardiovascular and stroke risk seems to be unique to icosapent ethyl compared to neutral effects of non-specific mixtures of EPA that include docosahexanoic acid [34], and also over-the-counter forms of fish oil or EPA supplements, which are not recommended [35].”
Thanks, Lizzy, for all your updates and insights.
dogn
Btw, this avg cost is from whalewisdom site. Not sure how reliable they are considering that they still list John Thero as CEO lol
Sarissa estimated average price paid $3.96
Lower than previous report of $4.46 in Jan. 29 CNBC article https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/29/amarin-has-a-big-decision-to-make-how-sarissa-capital-can-help-it-move-forward.html
Does this reflect a mistake in reporting then or now, or suggest Denner has in fact been using hedging to reduce his effective cost basis?
It is not clear to me what reporting requirements are, but I don’t believe realized gains from hedging activities (e.g., short selling or selling options) are currently reported directly. The 13D filed upon exceeding 5% of float detailed all purchases by date, # shares and cost. So if share count unchanged, how did cost basis drop 11.2%?
Thank you, Marjac and North, for your tireless efforts to right this injustice!
dogn
Amarin’s usual proxy filing dates can be seen at https://investor.amarincorp.com/financial-information/proxy-statements
PROXY STATEMENTS
Apr 29, 2021
Jun 01, 2020
Apr 25, 2019
Apr 20, 2018
Apr 21, 2017
Apr 29, 2016
Apr 24, 2015
Apr 30, 2014
Apr 23, 2013
Apr 27, 2012
May 02, 2011
2020 probably delayed due to pandemic. It’s definitely late this year compared to usual late April filing. Why? Negotiating with Denner for a board seat would seem a reasonable guess. Near term potential catalyst?
71117
That seems to be the case. But more immediately, as a sale could still be quite a ways off, I don't see what would have kept Sarissa Capital from using near-term market decline and anticipated poor earnings report to use hedging, for example, to:
1. Begin building short position (keeping size under 4M shares, 1% of total shares outstanding) around recent April 6 peak ($3.69) heading into earnings.
2. Day before earnings price closes at $2.74. If major positive earnings beat, unlikely to pop back above $3.69 (+35%), can close short with no loss.
3. In days after earnings, short sell further until price stabilizes.
4. Close out short positions near bottom ($1.11).
Potential max gain $3.69-$1.11 ($2.58)*4M =$10.32M
Sarissa Capital is reported to have 24M shares at average cost of $4.46 (~$107M). Above hedging could reduce effective cost basis to ~$97M or $4.03/share, and never have to be reported.
5. Add <1% long position (not quite 4M shares) near $1.11 and hold on ride back up to, say, $3.69 and sell at another $10.32M gain. New effective cost basis ~$87M or $3.63/share. No longer underwater. All public knows is he still has $24M shares and what he paid for this core position. No one knows hedging activities and what his true cost basis is.
6. Rinse, repeat.
Just one example (entirely speculation on my part) of what Sarissa Capital might be doing without having to report anything... is this not what hedge funds do?
Just noting a concern... not possible to guess Sarissa Capital's target sale price from 13D reported entry cost. I suspect an expectation of such type of aggressive hedging activities may have been at least one reason for Lars Ekman's Soffinova firm to liquidate their AMRN shares when they did, perhaps less than any inside knowledge of company's near term business outlook.
Thanks, Captain. As far as "has completed" the site you linked shows:
Date of closure to data entry
2022 Year 03 Month 31 Day
Date trial data considered complete
2022 Year 09 Month 15 Day
The Sarissa Capital 13D notes they “reserve the right to, from time to time and at any time: (i) acquire additional Shares and/or other equity, debt, notes, instruments or other securities (collectively, “Securities”) of the Issuer in the open market or otherwise; (ii) dispose of any or all of their Securities in the open market or otherwise; or (iii) engage in any hedging or similar transactions with respect to the Securities.”
No one here is discussing (iii), which may include short selling, as a means for Denner to reduce his effective cost basis. If trades closed with <1% net change of ownership, no requirement to report.
Kiwi,
Having added more shares already "too soon" in the low 3s, high 2s, I did add a few more last week also too soon at 1.37-1.55, but am now out of dry powder and topped out at 17000. Many in inherited accounts I can't add new funds to.
I would agree it seems like a wonderful buying opportunity now with what my DD and this iHub board has taught me about AMRN following closely since starting a position just before the Reduce-it pop. Continuing to add after that, I sold ~1/2 just before the DU-saster which fortunately allowed me to average down the past 2 years.
Fortunately, most of my investments are in a 403B that doesn't allow individual stock holdings, or managed inherited accounts I can't wreck with my own mediocre stock picking skills. My dad picked stocks well, but I never acquired his prowess. I now only manage about 7-8% of my investments (which has dropped to 2-3% currently). Advisors recommend not putting more than 5% (some say 10%) into 1 stock, so I feel I'm already quite overweight AMRN.
I hope to get out of stock trading altogether after recovering a remaining ~$20K of realized losses (not going so well at moment ;-o) with a "buy low, sell higher" and "it's not a loss unless you sell" philosophy, and do truly believe AMRN is deeply undervalued and I'll make it out OK, just waiting much longer than hoped. For me it's a time savings to just follow 1 stock compared to what I was doing in the past, hence my more detailed DD here.
I did recently put ~1% of portfolio into positions in ETF XBI to "diversify" a bit, but also too soon - down ~16%. Assuming that recovers before AMRN, I may take on more AMRN for part of expected ride back up to allow myself an earlier exit.
dogn
Amendment Requirements for 13D Filers
From https://ibkr.info/node/2654
Rule 13d-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") requires you to promptly, within two business days, amend Schedule 13D whenever material changes in the information disclosed on a Schedule 13D occur. A material change includes any material increase or decrease in the percentage of the class of securities you are deemed to "beneficially own." For instance, if you manage more than 5% in the shares of an issuer and the percentage managed increases or decrease by more than 1% (whether through a transaction or other event), you must amend your 13D filing.
Item 4: Purpose of Transaction. The Reporting Persons will continue to review their investment on an ongoing basis and reserve the right to, from time to time and at any time: (i) acquire additional Shares and/or other equity, debt, notes, instruments or other securities (collectively, “Securities”) of the Issuer in the open market or otherwise; (ii) dispose of any or all of their Securities in the open market or otherwise; or (iii) engage in any hedging or similar transactions with respect to the Securities.
Schedule 13D; Rule 13d-2(a) Although short sales by a 13D reporting person normally will not change that person's Rule 13d-3 beneficial ownership (since such sales do not change the amount of shares over which the reporting person has voting or investment power", such sales may trigger a requirement to amend the Schedule 13D pursuant to Rule 13d-2 unless all applicable changes in the facts previously set forth in the reporting person's Schedule 13D are not material. For example, the short sale may represent a change in the source of funds (Item 3), a possible shift in purpose (Item 4) (particularly to the extent that a plan or proposal to dispose of securities of the issuer was not disclosed previously), a "transaction" in the subject security (Item 5), as well as a "contract, agreement, understanding, or relationship ... with respect to ... securities of the issuer" (Item 6) and required exhibit (Item 7). The same analysis applies to a pledge of the securities in a secured transaction or the writing of call options.
71117