alive and kicking
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.
Flo,
Thanks so much for the web site connection to the presentation.
Vinny
<Hard to make out, looks like he is either indicating "thumbs down" or giving us the finger...>
Maybe he is doing both.
It probably would be worse if what Cox has to say actually got out.
I don't know why there is so much surprise at the reverse split, as many people posted it would come. I believe Dew pointed out that they would do the reverse split to drive the number of shares down so that the $200 million limit wouldn't block GTCB from raising new funds by issuing additional shares. That made sense to me so I expected it would happen but thought that would be the news for the CC since I didn't expect any deals to be made.
A reverse split in itself isn't bad news, but as MTB reposted, there is now 200 million shares Cox can play with, and that is like placing gasoline in the hands of an arsonist. It does worry me for because Cox hasn't shown any concern for shareholders in the past. I am curious as to why this was announced just before the CC, but it may mean they already have someone lined up for financing. Looks like we are facing either LFB as majority owner or another financier to pay off LFB and be a major shareholder. Of course there could be the worst of both worlds, the LFB debt gets converted to GTCB shares, and a new financier comes in to take a big chunk out of GTCB.
madcity,
No it isn't semantic, but provides a vivid illustration of how you completely misrepresent GTCB and its current shaky position. The mammalian transgenic approach has been proven a valid method by both EMEA and FDA approval of ATRYN, so it is a lie call GTCB a scam. I don't think that even my "good friend" Dew would characterize GTCB as a scam even though he obviously thinks it has little or no value as an investment. Nobody is disputing that Cox's failure to 1) manage GTCB's finances, 2) make deals favorable for GTCB, 3) focus efforts with regard to resources avalable or 4) consider shareholder value. Yes there is much to criticize about GTCB's management but the fact that GTCB still has some value despite Cox makes it clear GTCB is not a scam. I hold Cox in low regard and wish he were gone.
Madcity,
No, not dispirited just getting more annoyed that Cox hasn't even tried to cut costs. One big reason why I dislike people like you is illustrated by your calling GTCB a scam. Cox and management have done a poor job and deserve scorn, but nothing about GTCB is a scam.
How much money has been spent in the past isn't very revelant to where GTCB can go in the future. What matters now is where you are and where you can go.
Why does it matter?
MTB,
GTCB's cc have been disappointing in the past so I won't hold my breath waiting for good news. If there is going to be some news, I am hoping it will be related to European ATRYN rights, with Lundbeck/Ovation being the most likely candidate given their rapid movement of ATRYN onto the market in the US.
Funny how the board gurus let Dew slam me
<p.s. MTB, your latest post sounds like something vinmantoo might have written, and that’s not a good thing.>
but when I make a gentle rebuttal, their post is deleted. Go ahead and delete this you cowardly hypocrite censors.
It is nice to see the US launch. This is some small bit of good news finally. It only took 4 months after FDA approval for Ovation/Lundbeck to get ATRYN on the market in the entire USA. In contrast, the horrid European partner LEO took 1 1/3 year to get ATRYN for sales and then only in England. GTCB should include this in their lawsuit against LEO for damages. What would be better is Lundbeck announcing the phase III trials for ATRYN in CABG and initiation of DIC trials in the US. Of course, I would like to see European rights finally transferred to a new partner and DIC trials restarted there.
Biopearl,
I am sorry that you think I have destroyed the board. No, it isn't the fault of any other poster, nor the declining state of GTCB. No sir, it is all my fault for asking for accountability. When Lew said he sold off because LFB now is first in line for GTCB's IP, I didn't attack or criticize him. He may be right in the end that it is a disaster for GTCB. When Dew sold off because he said the increased number of GTCB outstanding shares made GTCB a less attractive investment, I didn't criticize him. In fact, I defended him when he posted his negative views about GTCB as an investment on the yahoo board, and who know he may be right. I did take real umbrage to the poster who said Ovation has dropped GTCB after the Lundbeck deal was announced, as it didn't happen. When I called this person out, the poster refused to apologize. Everyone makes errors and all one needs to do is correct them and apologize. I guess error correction and factual accuracy are no longer required on this board according to you. Do this mean I have free reign to post glowing deals, such as GTCB has signed a secret deal to pay off the LFB loan and fund operations for 2 years without issuing anymore shares? Is this okay with you, and I won't have to rescind it even though it didn't happen?
I am pleased that you like the calm, assuring and even thoughtful tone of Cox. Too bad that is window dressing which has only served to mask the severe fincancial problems at GTCB. I supported and defended Cox for a long time but finally turned against him when he failed to institute any meaningful financial cuts to minimize GTCB's cash burn. I stated that I could run GTCB better in this regard. You don't even have a clue about me or my background so don't know if I could rightfully make such a claim, but I noticed you didn't have a problem using that statement to make a personal attack against me. Pretty telling, don't you think? Cox's failure to reign in spending makes him a failure and the wrong person to have been leading GTCB in the past year or more. There are a great deal of people who could do a better job in this regard. That I included myself in that rather large group is no big deal, at least I don't think so. Hey, maybe you, Lew or Dew could have done a better job.
Finally, so don't read my posts if they hurt your delicate sensibilities. Whether you do so or not is irrelavant. What is relevant is that you owe everyone on this board to make you best efforts to post factual information. I do understand that anger, frustration, fear or even carelessness can make someone post factually inaccurate information. When you do make a statement that has no basis in reality, as we all do at one time or another, just excuse yourself and correct the error. That is what I have done and will continue to do. If you find that too hard, then just correct the error but don't act as if someone calling on you to be accountable is doing something horrible or unacceptable.
Poor jesse,
Do I need to repost once again your glowing commonts about GTCB after the Ovation deal disappointed most of us here, inlcuding myself, because the up front money was so poor. You were effusive in how much big pharsa was interested in GTCB and assuring all was bright. Then immediately after you sold, you took the exact opposite view.
Dew,
There you go again. I read your post little and found it worthless. You brought up the issue of LFB having the option to convert shares and take majority control if GTCB doesn't pay back the loan. Now, we all know this is hanging over GTCB's head, so I wondered why you raised the issue now. I made a very simple factual statement followed by a very simple question.
"LFB wouldn't assume majority control UNLESS they immediately converted all the options. Are you saying they will do that?"
If you were able to read english you would know that nowhere did I say that you thought LFB would immediately exercise the option. I just asked you if you thought this was the case. You could have given a simple answer that 1) you believed LFB would take control immediately or 2) that you don't think so. As I expected, you declined to answer. The new negative Dew wasn;'t finished tso you tried to twist what I said. Let's get back to why you raised the issue. In my OPINION, it is just another case of you being Mr Negative regarding all things GTCB. Are you going to have a count down each and everyday until either the LFB loan becomes due, or GTCB figures out away to pay it off?
Dew,
If I remember correctly, you intially stated that the for cause comment was something GTCB either hid or didn't mention, when the reality was they did.
Second, the posters I have called liars, actually did lie. Here is one example. Remember a poster who said Ovation dropped GTCB. I said it was a lie since Ovation hadn't dropped GTCB so I asked him to rescind the statement. The poster refused so I called him a liar. Do you think it was a lie? Another was the whole Jesse saga, when I accurately posted major contradictions (lies) in his comments. Since you like to cast aspersions, why don't you list all the posters I have called lies and explained where I was wrong?
Third, GTCB stated many times that LEO said there was no problem with safety or efficacy regarding rATIII. It was my OPINION that GTCB was accurately reporting what LEO said. It is my OPINION that you seem to think this was not true since you just stated you haven't seen anything from LEO. IN my OPINION that makes it seem like you think GTCB is lying.
Third, funny how you accuse me of having a problem with english, when you obviously have one. Great, it is your OPINION that LEO knows rATIII doesn't work in DIC. Are you happy? In my OPINION, this is more non-sense from you and another indication of your everything negative about GTCB. You don't have a freaking clue how many patients had made it through the DIC trial. You don't have a clue how many patinets it woudl tkae for LEO to get even a hint that rATII wasn't working. Yet you stated you THINK that LEO knows rATIII didn't work.
Fourth, here is my explanation once again for you. It was becoming obvious to LEO that the DIC trials would take a lot more cash and a lot longer to complete than they thought. Even if the data were good there was no guarantee it would be successful in phase III and that would be even more expensive. In addition, they would have had to pay GTCB milestones for the phase II trial. LEO decide to drop the project to avoid cost and told GTCB they were reprioritizing. They also filed a for cause suit to cover their butts legally since they knew they didn't have leg to stand on. LEO figured they could force GTCB's hand by delaying the transfer and get out of paying a penalty. See, this doesn't require any lying by anyone.
LFB wouldn't assume majority control UNLESS they immediately converted all the options. Are you saying they will do that? Even if they did that are you saying it is a disaster and the end of GTCB and the shareholders? If GTCB management is a bunch of serial liars, as you have repeatedly claimed, why wouldn't you want the LFB board to assume some level of control or at least exert the threat of some level of control. Unless of course you are assuming they are a bunch of liars as well. Did they come by this lying naturally or were they converted to the lying phenotype by their association with GTCB?
Let's make this very clear so you can't weasel out. You have been repeatedly saying that GTCB and Cox have been lying about rATIII in series of press releases and in the conferecne calls. I guess LEO is just being a good sport and letting GTCB use their name in these repeated lies.
You also claimed that LEO has determined that rATIII doesn't work in DIC even though the trial recruiting went very slow, you have no idea how many patients received rATIII, and that the full trial was need to assess performance.
biotechnewbee,
What I would like to see soon is the transfer of rATIII to a new partner for the European, Canadian and the Middle Eastern markets along with some kind of payment to GTCB for those rights. I would feel better if it Lundbeck or another company rather than LFB since I don't like seeing GTCB's fate being so reliant on LFB. I would also like to see announcement of the CABG trial and or the DIC trial restarting. I know the CABG was mentioned in the CC, but talk is cheap so I await the actual start.
Biotechnewbee,
Thanks for your efforts. It would have been nice if GTCB management had actually talked about their plans for funding operations through the end of 2009 and beyond, but I guess they aren't being paid enough to provide such mundane information. Perhaps they will be kind enough to do so by the next CC.
Biopearl,
Be careful, it just might be more lies from GTCB. As you recall Dew has claimed repeatedly that GTCB and LEO lied about rATIII in the past.
Yes LEO is a successful company. Yet according to you Dew, they have repeatedly lied about rATIII in public statements risking lawsuits.
My only frustration is with your constant drumbeat of negative interpretations of everything GTCB. The lysoyme enriched milk is a case in point. Lysozyme is an enzyme that weakens the integrity of the bacterial cell wall, as do many antibiotics such as penicillin do. Such lysozyme enriched milk must be classified as a therapeutic, not as a nutrient supplement. This means the lysoyme enriched milk is another potential revenue source. Not guaranteed, or even likely, but it is a possibility. Your rather pedestrian comments on this topic just re-inforces that you have no desire to perform even the most basic analysis with an open mind. Your everything is negative or has no value to GTCB comes through loud and clear.
The potential for big selling drugs from GTCB is far sooner than 5 years from now. In the past you noted such things, but now with your everything negative all the time with regard to GTCB attitude, it is much longer. In any event, even if your super negative view is correct, which I competely disagree with, 7 years of multi-billion dollar drugs sounds pretty good to me.
1) GTCB, its partners and shareholders.
2) Yes.
3) Yes
4) Yes.
Yes, the milk patent expires in 2021. That is still plenty of time to make a lot of money before then. Most people look at at patent issues being a problem when it is two years or so away, but in the Dew's always negative view of GTCB, 12 years is really soon.
Right, and since the product in question is designed to destroy bacteria, it is akin to an antibiotic so would qualify as a therapeutic.
I hear you Flo.
Madcity,
No I wasn't going to call you a liar since you weren't lying. When I call someone a liar it is because they have lied and when it is pointed out to them they refuse to change their statements to the truth. Perhaps the concept of truth and lies is one with with you have little or no experience. Rather you were posting non-sense. I especially liked how you said that GTCB shouldn't do anything about a potential situation where someone else would use their IP. Playing with the technology for research purposes is far different from using it to market a product without compensation.
Vinny
anotherbiotechguy,
What is also absurd is that this madcity poster said that GTCB shouldn't
do anything about it if Gates tried to pull that illegal crap. Right, so the farmers who would sell the milk could make money, the truckers who ship the milk should make money and the stores that sell the milk should make money. However, the small struggling biotech company that has the intellectual property rights should be excluded from making any money or shouod be beyond such mundane things as making money. Gates could donate his entertainment budget as it it likely in the millions of dollars a year.
I am not lawyer either. However, your argument sounds absurd. It doesn't seem likely that you could use someone else's technology to produce a product and then give it away for free because you effectivelty take away the company's ability to make money off their own patents. Bill Gates is rich as hell. If such a situation happened, he could easily and should pay GTCB royalties. Using your logic, Gates could just manufacture any product he liked and give it way.
I was a looking back over some past CCs and it appears the switch to Lonza had already happened before the DIC trial had "ramped up". I believe the ruined rATIII batch was from the previous contractor, which makes it is hard to see how that would affect the trials. In any event, it was reported that recruitment was going slower than expected so LEO was trying to get more medical centers involved. That doesn't sould like supply contraints to me, unless you want to invoke that is is just another series of supposed lies being issued by GTCB and LEO. In any event, that wouldn't preclude LEO from raising the lost batch as a legal issue, regardless of whether it has merit. The key for me is to see a new partner to get some up front cash and to re-start the DIC trial, without having to wait on the issue of whether there will be compensation from LEO or not.
Biopearl,
I was thinking the same thing. It is hard to imagine how much this would have hindered rATIII sales given that it took LEO forever to pricing in a large number of European countries. In addition, I thought GTCB indicated it was the batch rendered useless was due to a fault of their contracter not their own.
Flo,
Nice pair of posts. As far as the termination of the contract, getting a cash settlement from LEO for breach of contract would be nice, but becoming free so that GTCB can sign another partner to sell rATIII in Europe and fund the DIC trial is more imperative. The new partner should generate at least a few million in up front fees since rATIII is approved in Europe and the data exists to submit for expansion into pregant HD patients.
As you know, Dew has repeatedly posted that both LEO and GTCB keep lying when they say there were no issues of efficacy and safety. Dew also stated more than once that LEO knows rATIII doesn't work in DIC and that is why they sued to drop GTCB, despite the fact that trial recruiting was very slow and almost certainly didn't come close to achieving numbers that one would need to make any reaosonable extrapolation. Therefore, I will give my view based on what likely happened even though I don't have any real knowledge on the topic, ala Dew. Because the DIC trial recruiting went slower than expected, and LEO had to try and expand the number of centers, perhaps by GTCB's insistence. The costs associated with the phase II trial were far higher than LEO anticipated or budgeted. If the phase II trials was successful, LEO would have to pay milestones and pony up significantly more money for the phase III trial(s). They decided not to take the risk so tried to get out of the deal by saying they were re-prioritizing their operations. They added the alleged cause to try and get some negotiating leverage with GTCB to minimize or avoid paying a penalty for breach of contract. The haggling over payments kept the rATIII transfer of rights in limbo. As usual, GTCB management was incompetent and the process dragged on. GTCB should have immediately sued to expedite the rights transfer as well as counter suing LEO. They finally did this a few days ago.
Dew,
That is what I expected you would do, or should I say not do. How about answering my question about comparing the value of INSM's former assest and GTCB's assets?
Excuse me Dew, I was wrong. I should have said you act and post as if those assets for GTCB have no value, not that you directly say it has no value. I do apologize for stating an interpretation of what you said, despite the fact that it does capture your spirit of negative views about GTCB. See, whenever I bring up the a comparison of GTCB to INSM, you routinely dismiss it and focus on the $20 or so million that INSM got for their biologicals as if that is the only relevant number to GTCB. You also keep saying INSM got the bulk of the money for their personnel and production facility. I don't know how anyone could interpret your repeated comments as anything else except that you place little to no value on GTCB's trained personnel and production capabilities. But you are correct, you didn't come out and directly say it has no value so I apologize.
Now why did I intepret your comments as meaning you think GTCB has no value. I would assume that GTCB could get as much as INSM got. See GTCB has a market cap of $34 million now at $0.31 a share, so if they could get $120 million, how much would GTCB be worth a share? You keep dismissing GTCB. Please tell us how much you think GTCB could get for their assets since you keep saying that the INSM deal has no bearing on GTCB and even mocked me for saying the INSM deal is a plus for GTCB? As far as being mortgaged to LFB, yes that it true with the mortgage being due in July 2012. But being mortgaged to LFB isn't the same as LFB owning GTCB. LFB just has the first call on the IP in the event that GTCB goes bankrupt.
As long as we are on the issue of corrections, when are you going to apologize for repeatedly saying that GTCB and LEO have been lying about rATIII having no issues of safety or efficacy behind the breakup? When are you going to apologize for repeatedly saying that LEO knows rATIII is a failure in DIC?
Dew,
I also find it amusing that you accept that the facilities of and trained personnel from INSM have $120 million in value but that GTCB has none in these areas.
Right, and it isn't possible that LEO is using the alleged cause as a legal maneuver to try and get out of paying GTCB a penalty. Well, at least you stopped saying that both LEO and GTCB are outright and repeatedly lying when they keep stating that there is no issue of safety or efficacy in the decision.
read,
There is also variation with cell culture from batch to batch. The issue isn't whether there will be small variations, but whether it matters. In essence, rATIII is a FOB for plasma purified ATIII. The fact that the FDA approved rATIII on the first try indicates it isn't as big of a concern as you seem to think. It isn't as if GTCB will be purify separate batches from each goat, rather they will have several goats producing and then pool the milk prior to purification. I think that you are missing one major point about cost. It includes the ability to scale up, and that is where GTCB has a major advantage over cell culture.
As far as the INSM deal, don't you think it provides at least a small positive for GTCB, given that it is in the realm of a big pharma getting into biologicals?
Are you going to weigh in on GTCB suing LEO? The way I see it is that LEO has been causing delays because they don't want to pay GTCB for breach of contract and they figured that by delaying they could get GTCB to give in and relinquish any penalty payments to free up rATIII. Now that GTCB has FINALLY sued, they should be able to get rATIII transferred to another company before resolving the issue of LEO paying a penalty since both partners want to end the relationship. I do agree with go seek that GTCB should have sued from the beginning and the fact they didn't once again speaks to poor management.
I expect that GTCB should be able to get several million in up front cash from a new partner because rATIII has already been approved in both the US and Europe. Both the LEO and Ovation partnerships were made prio to any approvals. In addition, pricing terms have been negotiated in many European countries and the data exists to have the market expanded in Europe to include pregnant HD women. This means the new partner should be able to rapidly generate sales in Europe. If I let myself fantasize a bit, GTCB will also get a loan from the new partner so that they can pay off the LFB loan prior to June 1st.
read_this,
Yes there is a good chance there will be more dilution. Let's assume that GTCB won't be an a position to repay the LFB loan by June. That isn't the same as going bankrupt as the naysayers keep arguing. It means GTCB will need to generate more cash to keep operations going, not generate enough cash to repay the loan and keep operations going. Yes there will be more dilution.
Dew said he bailed out becuase of increased dilution. What is amusing is that Dew views every bit of news as a negative. It will be truly amusing to see how he spins passage of the FOB legislation as a negative for GTCB. You can't see how passage of the FOB legislation following up on FDA approval of rATIII won't be viewed as positives for GTCB, and by any potential pharma partner that might want to use GTCB's service to get into the lucrative biologicals market?
A new partner rATIII in Europe will mean some kind of payment to GTCB, and maybe some kind of payment from LEO for breach of contract. More importantly, GTCB will finally have someone to get rATIII in Europe expanded to pregnant HD women, and to push for sales in Europe to finally generate some income there, as well as get the all important DIC trial restarted,
Dew,
I am disappointed in you. You forgot to directly repeat your mantra that both LEO and GTCB have been publically lying when they said the change had nothing to do with safety or efficacy. I guess that fact they it took forever for LEO to even come close to getting pricing set in a broad array of European countries doesn't speak to LEO's lack of committment, lack of competency or perhaps both. The DIC trial recruitment was slow and you have no idea how many patients were treated, yet you somehow know that LEO determined it was a failure and that both GTCB and LEO are still conspiring to lie about this. This is what was re-iterated today.
<As previously disclosed, LEO had attempted to terminate its 2005 collaboration agreement with GTC for alleged cause. LEO made it clear that its decision to seek termination was not based on any safety or efficacy issues regarding ATryn?, and GTC does not believe that LEO had any basis for such termination. GTC believes it is taking necessary and appropriate steps to protect its legal rights through the arbitration process and the notice of termination. >
If LEO wanted to simply walk away they could have done so quickly. I look at what happened is that was objecting to how much money it would have to pay to GTCB so the process was dragging on for too long. GTCB finally decided it had enough and sued to force the issue so that they can move on with rATIII. I don't think anything that GTCB does or says could change your attitude. You keep behaving as a spurned suitor, viewing everything has done in the past or is doing now as a negative, and desperately hoping that GTCB fails. It is amazing to watch your transition from major GTCB advocate to major GTCB critic.
Dew,
How is it bad news that GTCB announces they are suing LEO to terminate agreement and seeking damages from LEO? How is it bad news that GTCB announces it because they say they want to accelerate progress and expand the HD indicoan into prgannt women in Europe and rATIII sales and development in Europe, Canada and the middle East? How is this bad news when they mentioned the DIC trials as part of the reason for suing to move forward?
I think it is great news that GTCB is finally taking an aggressive stance to move rATIII forward. Granted I am biased in favor of GTCB, but I am being far more objective than you are. If you were at least trying to be somewhat fair, you would say it is a mild positive or at worst a neutral. It is absurd that you call this bad news and a bombshell being released on friday to bury bad news. Everyone has known for quite sometime about the LEO deal termination but you are posting as if this is some major unexpected surprise. How is all this bad news?