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,
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?
Yes, that and if the Western world doesn't collapse either due to the current financial crisis. By the way, we were talking about the maturity date for the LFB loan.
Yes, in 3 1/2 years.
Flo,
Looks like Ovation is a more on the ball than Leo. I don't recall seeing anything like that on LEOs web site after EMEA approval. It would be nice to have Ovation announce the phase III CABG. It would be far better to finally get some guidance on when the phase II DIC/sepsis trial will restart and if Ovation will be a part of it for potential future approval in the US.
Yes, that time is 3 1/3 years from now. So, what is your point?
Your scenerio wouldn't occur until July 2012.
Cro,
I agree it is becoming more and more unlikely that GTCB will able to repay the LFB loan prior to June 1st. Why are you calling such an event an LFB takover? If LFB excercises the warrants and becomes the majority shareholder, that isn't a buyout or a takeover. LFB will get more seats n the GTCB BOD and gain more control over GTCB. Based on how poorly most of us view GTCB's current management, do you think having different managament input is a big negative.
gymgravity,
I don't about your computer, but mine remains silent even when there are new posts. Unless, you are referring to the screams of agony one emits after reading the latest "deals" by GTCB or the latest CC from Cox.
Lew,
Have you been on vacation?
Oldberkeley,
Another gem!
Thanks,
Vinny
Gallows humor we can use. Thanks!
Dew,
I see, you feel free to post insults when others disagree, but deny others the same right.
<I don’t see anything in Thurly’s post that contradicts my characterization of the MRK-INSM deal. To the contrary, I think your continued assertion that this deal is bullish for GTC marks you as a pumper of the worst kind.
If the MRK-INSM deal were now to fall apart for some bizarre reason, I have no doubt you would post that that was a bullish development for GTC.>
Cro,
Sorry for the misattribution. I should have gone back to the original source but didn't. However, my point remains unchanged. I also inderstand the go with the flow mantra. I don't have any objections to doing that if I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, or if it doesn't contradict my beliefs. If it does go against what I think, I don't care if I am the only one who believes it. In that regard I am more like Giordano Bruno than Galileo Galilei. Simply going with the current can very easily cause you to go over the waterfall.
Cro,
<"Many years ago my mother told me a good way to tell if your going wrong is to watch what the crowed is doing. She said if 95% of the world thinks the world is flat, then it is flat. >
Sorry to inform you but your mother isn't the best source of information or advice. The world is round no matter how many people believe it is flat. It might make you feel better to have everyone agreeing with you that it is flat, but that doesn't change reality that the world is round. If you like, I get steer you to some sources that will prove to you that the world is round.
The announcement of the deal today isn't worth anything since there is apparently no upfront money. Absent cash, it would have been fine if there were a long term loan that could be used to pay off LFB and fund a year or so of operations to minimize dilutions. Sadly this doesn't appear to be the case for the press release. It will be interesting to read details of this deal and how GTCB spins it in the earnings report. From the release today it looks like GTCB actually has to spend money to make cell lines and show they can get expression before they get any taste of cash. If that is the case, then this deal stinks and makes it more of a priority that Cox be removed and that GTCB gets sold to people who understand business.
Dew,
<n Dew's view, it isn't the easily made drugs from INSM (Neupogen) which inspired the deal, it was the production facilities that Merck can use to make other drugs. [/quote] It’s not my view, it’s Merck’s view.>
Okay. I will change my response to satisfy your trivial point. However, it doesn't change a thing about my post. This one's for you Dew.
In Dew's AND MERCK's view, it isn't the easily made drugs from INSM (Neupogen) which inspired the deal, it was the production facilities that Merck can use to make other drugs. First, okay, so let's disregard rATIII for the moment. GTCB's goats are the production facility that can be bought to make other drugs so they have significant value, and can be considered as some kind of equivalent to INSM's production facilities.
Second, GTCB's plasma protein portfolio cannot be considered as drugs that can be easily made in large quanties by other means. In my view, this makes them have significant value in a deal.
Third, DIC is such a large indication, that it doesn't seem reasonable to simply dismiss it out of hand as having zero value.
Dew,
<You seem incapable of appreciating subtleties and nuances in your exchanges with Tom Newberry. For instance, Newberry emails you that the DIC program is still “in negotiation,” and you naïvely interpret this as bullish. >
Thanks for interpreting what I think, but too bad it isn't accurate. I didn't say the DIC program was on the verge of greatness. I said that the market is so large that it must be recognized as have value to someone. There is no guarantee of success. In addition, the trials will be complex and difficult to get running, and therefore expensive. These provide likely reasons why there has been such a delay, and also likely reason for the LEO transfer as I speculated. I regard FDA approval of rATIII as a removal of a negative, and its conversion to a positive for a DIC trials, especially in the US.
As far as being naive, I asked why GTCB isn't actively pursuing negotiations with other partners, with regard to the DIC trials since things have been moving slowly, as well as with other trials. I didn't receive a satisfactory answer so will follow up. Yes I know there is a possibility things will keep dragging on with regard to DIC, and I will address my concerns to Tom in a follow up.
Now, perhaps I am being naive. However, you have fallen into the habit of calling people liars when they make public statements with which you disagree. 1) Tom Newberry saying the GTCB CD antibody is the same exact one as the LFB antibody that just entered phase I trials, 2) LEO saying there are no problems with safety and efficacy in their decision to transfer to LFB. 3) Cox/GTCB saying one, then you are will follow up on it. saying there are no problems with safety and efficacy in their decision to transfer to LFB.
Dew states,
<Neupogen/Neulasta are among the easiest protein drugs to make and there are already several Neupogen/Neulasta biosimilars being sold outside to the US. (Teva plans to submit a BLA for its own Neupogen knockoff later this year based on a full-fledged clinical dossier, i.e. this is not an FoB......As previously stated (and erroneously disputed by MTB and vinmantoo), the MRK-INSM deal is primarily about MRK’s acquiring production assets for its new push into biologics, and it has little if any direct consequence for GTC.>
In Dew's view, it isn't the easily made drugs from INSM (Neupogen) which inspired the deal, it was the production facilities that Merck can use to make other drugs. First, okay, so let's disregard rATIII for the moment. GTCB's goats are the production facility that can be bought to make other drugs so they have significant value, and can be considered as some kind of equivalent to INSM's production facilities.
Second, GTCB's plasma protein portfolio cannot be considered as drugs that can be easily made in large quanties by other means. In my view, this makes them have significant value in a deal.
Third, DIC is such a large indication, that it doesn't seem reasonable to simply dismiss it out of hand as having zero value.
Dew,
I wouldn't be surprised that if there are more than one CD20 antibody from LFB. I wouldn't be surprised to find that GTCB is starting to get them ready for goat production as well. You said the antibody from LFB was a biosimilar and the GTCB was a "biobetter", which implies GTCB has no direct benefit from the LFB announcement. I suggested reasons why I could see that both antibodies were identical but that LFB MAB was cell culture derived to get the intial human trials going while GTCB makes large amounts in goats for production, which takes longer to get initially get going than cell culture. I said I wouldn't debate the issue anymore but rather that I would get the information from GTCB.
I emailed Tom Newberry and emailed me that the antibodies from LFB were the same and that GTCB is using the goats to make large scale production batches. This means that my scenerio was correct. In response, you state that Tom Newberry is lying. When LEO and GTCB (Cox) both announced that there were no safety or efficacy issues with rATIII in the transfer from LFB to LEO. You responded several times by claiming that LEO knows that rATIII doesn't work in DIC so that LEO and COX/GTCB are lying.
I do understand that you don't think GTCB is a good investment risk anymore, and explained some reasons why you sold. I disagree and am willing to hold, and I still may buy more. In the end you may be right, but time will tell. However, I just wish you wouldn't use accusations of Cox/GTCB/LEO lying as some basis for supporting your arguments. You are a much better analyst to have to resort to that.
Flo,
You asked me about any other points from my email with Tom Newberry. There are a few, but I need to read some more before commenting on some of his answers. Here is one I asked.
Second, in Dr. Cox's presentation, he mentioned having LEO as a partner.
I assume this was just a slip of the tongue, but nonetheless, it gave the
impression that Dr. Cox was a bit out of touch. It also raised an issue
that has really bothered me. When the transfer to LFB was announced, it
was said the DIC trial was temporarily halted until the transfer is completed. It was stated that this was expected by the end of the year. It is now mid-february, and we haven't heard if the transfer is completed, nor when to expect the DIC
trial to begin. Unfortunately, Dr. Cox and GTCB have had a habit of setting timelines and expections but failing to meet them. Another prominent example is rATIII sales in Europe vs projections. Since the major sales potential of rATIII appears to come from DIC, this seem like it should be an extremely high priority to restart the trial. If LFB and Ovation seems to be dragging their feet, shouldn't GTCB be shopping this around to other prospective partners. Also what about Japan for rATIII?
Tom's answer was.
As is appropriate in a corporate overview, Dr. Cox mentioned both the current contract that is still in place with LEO and the effort to transition this program to LFB or another partner. We remain in negotiations for this transition. This is shown on slide 9 that Dr. Cox spoke to. We continue to work to resolve this situation as expeditiously as possible, as we indicated late last year. Clearly this
transition has not moved as quickly as originally envisioned.
Thurly,
Nice find. It is exactly why I told Dew the INSM is positive for GTCB, even if the short term traders cannot see it, YET.
Another thing I was right about but Dew was wrong about is the CD20 monoclonal antibody. One of the things I asked Tom Newberry was the CD20 antibody.
Here was part of what I asked Tom.
<LFB has a CD20 monoclonal Ab in human trials, or about to enter trials. GTCB's has listed their monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody in pre-clinical trials. GTCB's has listed their monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody in pre-clinical trials. Is the LFB antibody the same as GTCB's antibody? If so, does this mean that GTCB's is supplying them with the Ab used in the human trial, so GTCB's web site should be updated to say in phase I trials? Is it the same antibody but LFB is making the
exact same Ab using cell culture, so technically they different Abs as far as
the FDA is concerned? Does it mean that the LFB and GTCB antibodies are
different entities that both bind the CD20 receptor. If so, which Ab is
one that is identical to one being used today, and which is a modification
that can be considered a new clinical entity? >
Tom's response.
<1. The anti-CD20 antibody that LFB entered into clinical study is based on a rat cell culture expression system. Other than that, it is the same antibody that we are developing transgenically for larger volume applications. As LFB announced in their PR, MABgene is producing the cell culture version. Our transgenic production system is capable of meeting the volume requirements projected for all the contemplated indications of this product. All the information on our program in the LFB collaboration shown on slide 15 is correct.>
I finally got around to emailing Tom Newberry and asked him a few questions, stated some concerns that I have as well as making some comments. One of the questions had to do with the CD20 monoclonal antibody from LFB that just entered human trials, and what relationship it has to GTCB's CD20 monoclonal antibody. I will post what I find out.
Dew,
I understand your change in view because of pending dilution. There is somehitng to that. Yes the temporary hold in the DIC trial is a negative, but you seem to now think it somehow negates the whole value of transgenics as a production platform. The new Dew calls DIC dead. The old Dew would say that rATIII is approved for DIC in Japan, so once financials get settled, there is a good chance the trial will resume, possibly as a joint trial in the US and Europe. The DIC market is too big to not think it has a future.
<If, instead of acquiring INSM’s assets, MRK had announced that it was breaking ground on a new bioreactor to support its push into biologics, would you have touted that as a bullish development for GTC?>
No the deal itself is what makes it a positive. How MRK would choose to expand on production isn't the issue. Of course emotion plays a role in your behavior, as it does in my behavior. You seemed to get pissed during the big GTCB drop and sold all off near the low. I never understood why you didn't at least hold some and wait until the FDA decision got closer. They way you act now, the INSM announcement for biologics is nothing for GTCB, when it is more evidence of big pharmas push into biologicals and FOBs.
A reasonable view is that is that has to be at least a small positive. The new Dew just casually dismisses it. Whether or not GTCB and Cox will or can take advantage is a different story. I do apologize for putting you in with Jesse. That guy is a hypocrite. For evidence here is what he wrote about 6 months ago. He lauds BP's interest in GTCB, but somehow after FDA approval and after he has sold, it is clear to him that BP has no interest.
<From this partnership GTC gains credibility and a dependent. Ovations is a highly respected biotech, with a CEO who is recognised as a star in the industry,,since Ovation is backed by big VCs you and BP can bet your lunch money they have done their DD on GTC and like what they see.. GTC now has 4 or 5 dependents whether you count GE...Due to the "strict" rules the FDA abides by....none of the "dependents" are going to be too happy if GTC decides to shut down the goat barns in Nov..This is without even considering the credibility of the deal which is likely to bring other forward thinking biotechs into GTCs pasture...>
Dew,
<The most consequential assets MRK is acquiring from INSM are the manufacturing building, the production equipment, and the trained staff.>
The goats are GTCB's manufacturing and production facility, and GTCB has the highly trained staff needed to run the facility. In addition, GTCB production facilities can be easily scaled up, as you so often brought up in the past as one of the major advantages of GTCB. Do you think that GTCB has lost the proceedure on how to scale up so that it is no longer an advantage??
If we follow your line of thinking, that the production capability and staff are why INSM are a good value, then buying GTCB is superior. Buying GTCB is akin to buying a generic drug pipeline. The plasma proteins GTCB is making can be considered as approved drugs, or dare I say it, approved biologicals. This doesn't even include the FOBs.
Jesse,
I especially like this one where you talk about how BP likes what they see. Now after FDA approval and you have sold, you keep saying BP doesn't care about GTCB or is even against them. I have wasted more than enough time looking over your posts, or attempting to point out the obvious, that you come off as a bit sneaky or underhanded by the way you mentioned you sold in an off-handed way deep in the center of a post. At least Dew was open when he sold. Did you notice how oldberkeley started the post out by saying he was out. Here is you posting about how well GTCB was positioned for the future. The post is 7 mothns before FDA approval.
Words by Jesse
<Reflexions on the "Partnership"
Well the long anticipated partnership has arrived and I note an air of disappointment in certain members of Goat Nation. These individuals look at the rather modest near term payments from Ovation,,,reach for their calculators and figure GTC will be going bankrupt on Nov. 24th 2008 at 2;47 PM and that's all the farther their reasoning takes them...
To appreciate the real significance of this partnership to GTC IMHO you must study the juxtaposition of the three signicant needs of an emerging technology. These are money, credibility, and dependents. Money is important to fund operations, but in biotechnology where the biggest hurdles are created by the regulatory agencies,,chiefly time,, almost no small company has enough money to survive without help. The most secure source of help comes from dependents,,dependents come from credibility...The rule is the more people who depend on the cow,, the more important the cow becomes..
From this partnership GTC gains credibility and a dependent. Ovations is a highly respected biotech, with a CEO who is recognised as a star in the industry,,since Ovation is backed by big VCs you and BP can bet your lunch money they have done their DD on GTC and like what they see.. GTC now has 4 or 5 dependents whether you count GE...Due to the "strict" rules the FDA abides by....none of the "dependents" are going to be too happy if GTC decides to shut down the goat barns in Nov..This is without even considering the credibility of the deal which is likely to bring other forward thinking biotechs into GTCs pasture...
regards JL ":>)
Jesse,
First, for some reason you keep saying pharma is against GTCB or can't see their value, but somehow LFB manages this "amazing" feat.
Second, Nice dodge. I like it when people like you don't address the issues. I did enjoy your comical name dropping about the trivial little one minute conversation you supposedly had with the LFB chairman from 2 1/2 years ago just after the intital EMEA rejection. You act as if this gives you some special insight into pharma or how all pharma execs see GTCB. This is laughable. Did you talk to soem of the goats too. You don't realize how rapidily things move when something new is seen as an advantage. Nobody wants to be left behind.
Third, You were awfully bullish in the very recent past, so not try and act as if you were always mister cautious. I linked to one of your previous posts to help jog your memory.
Fourth, I don't need or want your sympathy. Try not to worry so much. I don't give it any thought, since it is a risk I am willing to take.
Fifth, I still like my chances with GTCB, so again spare me the crododile tears. For some reason this upsets you. Jesse has turned against GTCB's chances, so obviously all should do so. Funny how strongly you and Dew are now viewing every event as a negative for GTCB. Since you like to attribute emotions to others, I will do the same. Both you guys are now actively rooting against GTCB because you don't' like the idea it could be successful and you could have made more money.
Jesse,
< The EMEA had unexpectedly given the company a negative opinion and the share price dropped 50% and there was alot of worry about a possible cheap buyout. I talked to Christian B. CEO of LBF who was there and asked him in private if LFB would defend GTC against a takeover. His very words were, "LFB would not act as a White Knight". Little did I guess that later it might be LFB in the role of the raider.>
What I find amazing is that you still need to boost your self importance and relevance by name dropping. It amuses me. Thanks for the laugh. Right, you can Christian are great pals. In the one or two minutes you spoke with him 2 1/2 years ago he told you his deepest thoughts and long term plans. Nobody expects LFB to save GTCB when they would benefit more by taking it over. What happened in 2006 after the initial EMEA rejection is irrelevant after FDA approval. What matters is who GTCB can attract, not what LFB will do.
<The way I see it, GTC is not well situated to bringing truly novel biotherapeutics to the market. The drug industry-FDA game is rigged against them as described in several of my previous posts. The FOB situations are unclear at the present and will be heavily dependent on how the FDA decides where and if transgenic production can substitute for cell culture.>
Of course Cox has been a bad manager. GTCB needs buyer with deep pockets and a desire to expand their pipeline with generics and biologics. The INSM deal shows that there is some interest, the issue is at what price and will Cox and the BOD wise up and make a sale. The new Sanofi-Aventis boss said as much.
<That leaves plasma proteins.There are well over a hundred plasma protiens and the potential profits are mind boggling. In this game, GTC's NPPP holds all the Aces. They face two problems... The first one is the difficulty of expressing plasma proteins in cell culture and their availability in pooled plasma, although limited, has meant relatively few BPs have done much business with them,,ergo they are outside of most of BPs interest. BP executives are not renown for their abilities to think "outside the box".The other problem is LFB who is in the plasma protien business and clearly understands how important GTC's NPPP is, and also understands how desperate things are at GTC. To me it looks like an alligator dragging one of my kids into a swamp.>
Now you don't make any sense, because plasma proteins are exactly where GTCB's strength is. It is why I still hold GTCB. That LFB recognizes it is irrelevant to GTCB's chances of selling the company or making a deal. If anything, it makes it clear why a sale or deal is a very real possibility. You need to ask yourself, if BPs don't think outside the box, how is it that LFB recognizes GTCB's value, but nobody else does? What, they don't have a box in France?
One of your problems is that you don't seem to realize that GTCB is INSIDE the box now, not outside, following FDA approval of rATIII. We have seen congressional interest and White House interest grow with regard to FOBs, and we have seen some pharma interest in seen FOB deals. I don't think you understand pharma or pharma executives as once things get rolling, they all want to jump on board as nobody wants to be left behind. Does this mean a good deal or great deal is imminent, or any deal at all for that matter? NO, but I think the chances for one have improved greatly.
Jesse,
Sorry about using the terms traitor and deserter since they are imprecise. I also never accused you for being a pump and dumper. I have defended Dew on the yahoo board after posters there have started calling him. If anyone calls you a pump and dumper, I will defend you as well.
I don't care why you or anyone else sold, or bought for that matter. Everyone makes his or her decisions based on their own emotional and financial status, and it is none of my businees why they make their decisions or what those decisions are. What you keep missing is that the way you casually mentioned the sale deep in the body of a message, after being so public about having some kind of inside connections was kind of unsavory. I guess I wll have to use an allegory.
Say there was a plant called Cox from a country called transgenica. The plant grew well in many climates and had a lot berries called goatsberries. The berries have high nutritional value and almost no flavor so can be used in a whole range of food products, and are very cheap to maintain so Cox plants have the prospect of greatly reducing food costs. A group of farmers decided form a company called GTCB, which imports and grows Cox plants. They started growing them well before the USDA decided if they will be allowed for usage in food because Cox plants take 10 years to mature.
The company fortunes ebbed and flowed, as many startup ventures do, and at town meeting, the merits of the project were discussed. Some people dropped out and others joined in. There was one person, Captain Jesse, who claimed to know how the USDA worked, and had connections to insiders, which he often talked about at the town meetings. This soothed people when times were tough. Capt Jesse also claimed to be a big shareholder, although nobody knew for sure. Still his words sounded reasonable so nobody had any reason to doubt good old Captain Jesse.
One day the town was celebrating as the USDA decided to approved the sale of goatsberries and to allow them to be used in some foods. There was rejoicing in the town. People were celebrating in a bar with a band. Captain Jess orders a beer and then says quietly to the bartender, well I don't think goatsberries have a chance because food companies don't like to think outside the box so even though costs could be greatly recuced and new foods made that were previously too expensive to be mass produced can be made. So I sold off and I am going to leave town. He had already packed his bags and put them in locker at the airport.
Another GTCB shareholders happened to be at the end of the bar and just barely heard Captain Jesse's comments over the band and reacted with surprise. So when the band died down, this other shareholder said in a loud voice everyone could hear, Capt Jesse, did you really just sell? Captain Jesse said oh yes, see I don't think goatsberries have a chance because food companies don't like to think outside the box so even though costs could be greatly reduced and new foods made that were previously too expensive to be mass produced can be made. Another shareholder, Major Vin looked at Captain Jeese with real disgust. He said, you know Captin Jesse, that was pretty low of you to be such a public and fervent booster of GTCB for a long, long time. Then when you sold you didn't have the decency to announce it to all with the same loud voice and gusto you used when you were espousing the merits of gooseberries. Now I don't care what you did, nor do I care why you sold, it just seems mighty underhanded and sneaky. Goodbye and good luck to you, but you have lost a lot of my respect.
Bruce,
Fair enough. I guess have some tenets I assume most people should have, including honesty and responsibility as I would expect no less from myself. These are pretty basic and I don't consider them extraordinary by any means.
There is some level of depending on others, the gathering of infomation being benefit of doing so. As far as wasting time, one cannot determine what is a waste, until a certain amount of contact. I find that uncertain and stressful times provide the crucible within which such things become more clear. I am more than happy to curtail or eliminate my exchanges when it becomes clear they have little or no value.
This topic is over as far as I am concerned, as are my contact with certain posters. .
Go seek,
<We all could have sold when the stock was @ 0.14 and announced to the board that we sold. Do you think that would have changed the price action on GTC going into the FDA approval?>
You are missing the point entirely and don't put words in my mouth. I never even hinted any any such thing.
<To call a man a "traitor" because he decided to sell his position for whatever reason is ridiculous. >
One again you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't call him a traitor for selling, nor did I even hint at it. Jesse brought up the military analogy so I was just returning the favor. No, perhaps traitor was the wrong word, I should have used the word deserter. As I said in the message, I don't care one way or another what he or anyone else does, buying or selling. Of course, anyone is free to do as they please and tell or not tell. I wish them luck in what they do.
My point is that the guy was a major booster of GTCB, so I thought that at least least have the decency to put it out there as openly as he did his boosting. If you are going to be a big time booster out in the open, then be consistent and be out in the open when you sell, not bury it as an aside.
Oldberkeley,
You shocked me twice this week. Once when you announced that you increased your shares by 1/3 and then with this announcemnt that you sold off. Best of luck to you. I hope that your losses weren't too severe and that you will soon regain the money on some other investment.
You were always a gentleman. Thanks also for all the great cartoons. They provided laughs at good times and bad.
Jesse,
I am not sure why you think that a fear that the fear the FDA would never approve transgenics or take along time wouldn't be an negative for those considering GTCB. Second, FOBs aren't the issue, but they are gravy. It is the plasma proteins that make GTCB a very credible buyout candidate.
As far as being a good soldier, I am nothing of the kind. I look at the possibilities and make my decisions based on them. I do not following orders and persevere regardless of the difficulty. If you want to use the military analogy, you are a traitor. You have been one of the long time boosters of GTCB and didn't waver. Yet when you decided to sell, the only mention was a casual line buried within the center of long message. It would have passed by unnoticed except for another poster noticing. Now, I don't care if you buy or sell, but as long time booster of GTCB, you should have been more open and obvious in saying you sold.
MTB,
Good to hear from you, and thanks for a great post. While I previously made this post about deals, I was also thinking of this as a rationale for why GTCB has value for a buyout. I too hope we are headed for a buyout as it provides the only way for shareholders to take get value, and for GTCB's technology to have a real impact. Cox needs to be fired because there is essentially zero evidence that he has the ability to match a companies finances with its goals. Actually, I don't care if he is fired, just that a buyout occurs. I just wanted to repeat why I think the GTCB pipeline has great potential value to a buyer. It was in response to some of Dew's criticisms. I made a few modifications.
Big pharma and mid-sized pharma make deals all the time for drugs still clinical trials. These deals happen for phase I, phase II and phase III staged drugs. The payoffs are usually many years down the road, especially for the phase I and phase II drugs, but sometimes even for phase III if it involves diseases like cancer. Pharma makes a bet with an uncertain payoff (i.e. outcome of the trials) and many fail. This doesn't stop pharma from making deals. The dollar amount of the deal is based probability of success, which correlates to the stage of trials, and the potential market size if the drug is successful. There is no guarantee of success, only a probability.
What hurt GTCB is the idea that the FDA might never approve transgenic drugs or keep delaying. This meant that no matter how good the drug was, it couldn't be sold. That uncertainty has been removed by FDA approval so now the multli-billion dollar potential of GTCB's pipeline is real and more akin to other pipelines containing drugs being developed using cell culture. In fact, there is an advantage for GTCB because we know the plasma proteins will be sucessful as therapy, and so will the monoclonal antibodies. We also know the markets will be huge. The two uncertainties, whether the drug will be successful and the market size, usually present in drug development deals have been removed. Yes, FOB legislation needs to be approved, but it doesn't need to be approved, this week, this month or even this year for deals to be made. It will be approved, hopefully sooner rather than later, but it will be done.
As I stated above, pharma always makes significant bets on drugs they don't know will payoff. I don't understand why you think pharma wouldn't make a bet when they know GTCB has goats making plasma proteins that already have a billion dollar market from plasma derived sources. I don't understand why you think pharma wouldn't make a bet when they know it will payoff after FOB legislation is passed. They won't be sitting around twiddling their thumbs while they wait for FOB legislation to pass. Rather the time will be used for maximizing purification proceedures and tests to confirm bio-equivalence so they can hit the ground running when FOB legislation does get passed.