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.
No one should be surprised by that. A Company doesn't need to have a working phone number for some brave soul to push 150 bucks across the table.
Did you get any news from these people regarding their meeting?
Monika Schuessler, Ph.D.
Head of Business Development & Licensing
P: +41 61 606 11 11
E-mail: licensing@basilea.com
Peer Nils Schröder, Ph.D.
Head of Corporate Communications & Investor Relations
P: +41 61 606 11 02
E-mail: media_relations@basilea.com
E-mail: investor_relations@basilea.com
What do you think about IPIX going dark? Have you had any contact with Leo?
"Personally, I'm happy to hear Leo's not taking calls."
I want to accommodate the wish expressed by your alias selection but I can't.
Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc is a publicly owned company and as such has a duty to provide certain information to current and prospective investors according to law. This does not mean that a CEO has to take phone calls from the public or anyone else (although Leo would have had some trouble having "fielded and rejected low-ball offers for indications or the company" as you believe he has without a working phone) and you're obviously entitled to your joy in being ghosted by the person responsible for keeping you informed.....an opinion that incredibly enough has been expressed by others previously.
You would have to do a pretty exhaustive search to find another publicly held Company, especially an SEC filer with a $9,843,363 market cap that answers its phone this way:
"The person you are trying to reach is not accepting calls at this time. Please try again later."
Based on a previous post there has not been a live response on the Company's published number for a week. I'd be amazed if it isn't addressed by tomorrow.
"Less than 86 million shares left to dilute.".....3/29/23
I think you drew that conclusion base on IPIX's transfer agents report to OTCMarkets on or around that date.
That report showed 514M shares outstanding at 4/27.
IIRC an earlier report was consistent with IPIX's own most recent 10Q showing 488M out.
You noted the 26M share increase.
I said this on 3/29:
"I suspect that the 26M added to the outstanding common number came from a conversion of the following:
"Series B 5% convertible preferred stock liability at $1,080 stated value; 620 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2022""
The last 13g/A filed by Kips Bay (who have been suggested to have joined LE on his trip to BeaMed and actually made an investment in them of their own....but that's not my purpose here) indicated that they held 45,032,659 shares of IPIX's Common Stock Class A.
If Kips DID convert the last of their Preferred and received 26M common in return, without selling any, they would hold well in excess of 9.9% of the IPIX outstanding (71/514 = 13.8%).
From the IPIX Certificate of Designation issued at the time of the Preferred sale:
"The “Beneficial Ownership Limitation” shall be 9.99% of the number of shares of the Common Stock outstanding immediately after giving effect to the issuance of shares of Common Stock issuable upon conversion of Preferred Stock held by the applicable Holder."
There has been no Amendment to the Certification filed by IPIX, nor has Kips Bay Amended their last 13G filing.
Bad storms in Massachusetts? Does that explain anything?
It's mostly cloudy in Wakefield.
There's a Chance T-storms then Partly Cloudy in Boca Raton.
It's a cell phone.
Would OTCMarkets take any action based on an inability to reach a Company?
Why was IPIX on the Venture Index on 4/12 (https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171666582) but not today?
ps. OTCMarkets just rebalanced their QB and QX indexes.....IPIX isn't on the deletion list.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/files/Quarterly_Index_Constituent_Changes.pdf
I didn't see an effective date of the changes but I believe IPIX was removed individually and subsequent to the rebalancing date.
"The person you are trying to reach is not accepting calls at this time. Please try again later."
(978) 921-4125 as per the IPIX website and OTCMarkets.com.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=+(978)+921-4125&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=+(978)+921-4125&sc=0-15&qs=n&sk=&cvid=3A768D247034460FB96A91260BF82845&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=&first=5&FORM=PERE
Note: This is a simple fact and not an attack.
"If you want to attack a small biotech company like Ipix you must start with one question. Is the company science good or not good?
If the science is not good the job is easy. Learn everything possible and demonstrate the science is not good. Tell everyone the bad evidence. It should be finished quickly if the science is not good."
...frenchbroad, 1 month ago today.
Was prurisol finished quickly? Was kevetrin finished quickly? The question can be asked about other CTIX/IPX candidates, I'm sure.
What you are calling an "attack" is really an effort to bring out some facts. But the easiest way to show that is to look to the historical and current share prices....there you can learn the truth without all the disturbing details.
Have you heard from Basilea about their Brilacidin discussion? Did they have their meeting? Do you think that the IPIX CEO will revealing anything or will we have to hope that you do?
"C. auris case counts have increased for many reasons, including poor general infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in healthcare facilities. Case counts may also have increased because of enhanced efforts to detect cases, including increased colonization screening, a test to see if someone has the fungus somewhere on their body but does not have an infection or symptoms of infection. The timing of this increase and findings from public health investigations suggest C. auris spread may have worsened due to strain on healthcare and public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic."
It's MRSA all over again.
1. Clean up the healthcare facilities.
2. Get Merck or someone else to run a trial combining capsofungin with B in infected sufferers, if they can find enough of them, and see if the shit really works. One thing that shouldn't be done is leaving the problem in the hands of LE....we know how that ends up and there's little point in directing any time and money towards it.
There were 40 times as many Covid cases in the US last week as there were cases of candida auris in all of 2022.
"In general, the fungus is not a threat to healthy people. People who are very sick, or who have long or frequent stays in health care facilities or a weakened immune system are at increased risk for acquiring C. auris."
https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/cdc-issues-warning-about-increase-of-drug-resistant-candida-auris-infections/2023/03
But I do know the answer to this question. Can you show the math that the Company used to get to the indicated percentage?
Ask yourself: What would have to happen to result in an increase in an ownership percentage when it is "fully diluted"?
"the Company owns approximately 35.7% of SML’s issued and outstanding equity securities and approximately 41.6% (not 41.7%) of SML’s equity securities on a fully diluted basis"
Sometimes one has to read the agreement to understand what is really meant by the press release that is issued about it.
So it seems that your answer to "Can you show the math that the Company used to get to that number?" is NO.
And you don't know that this is true:
"Anyone who doesn't own shares of IPIX cannot participate in any ownership interest in BeaMed Tech."
Does their agreement with IPIX preclude them from sharing ownership with anyone else?
Just because BeaMed doesn't offer shares on the open market doesn't mean that they can't be offered privately. For all we know they may have done so already.
Did the 10Q describe BeaMed's stockholder's equity status as of the 12/31 date of the report?
It did say this:
"On January 9, 2023, the Company announced BTL and Shina Systems Ltd., a company specializing in medical imaging software platforms, entered into a definitive strategic agreement."
What were the terms of that agreement? Did Shina get some BeaMed equity in the deal? FYI, as of the signing of the IPIX/BeaMed preferred deal we knew this, but we don't know if it's still true:
"3.12.1 Material Agreements. Except for the Transaction Agreements and other than as set forth in Section 3.12.1 of the Disclosure Schedule, there are no agreements, understandings, instruments, contracts or proposed transactions to which the Company is a party or by which it is bound that involve (i) obligations (contingent or otherwise) of, or payments to, the Company in excess of $25,000, (ii) the license of any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary right to or from the Company, (iii) the grant of rights to manufacture, produce, assemble, license, market, or sell its products to any other person that limit the Company’s exclusive right to develop, manufacture, assemble, distribute, market or sell its products, or (iv) indemnification by the Company with respect to infringements of proprietary rights."
I'm just asking questions to which I don't know the answers and I don't think that you do either.
"Anyone who doesn't own shares of IPIX cannot participate in any ownership interest in BeaMed Tech." Sez you. Things change.
"I am sure you noted in my post I placed clinical trial before the mention of compassionate use."
I did. But I didn't get the point.
Once a clinical trial is available to a patient Compassionate Use isn't likely to be.
"IPIX is a publicly-traded minority owner of BeaMed and holds 41.7% of the stock fully diluted."
Can you show the math that the Company used to get to that number?
"Compassionate use? "
Based on pre-clinical results?
Expanded access may be appropriate when all the following apply:
Patient has a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition.
There is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition.
Patient enrollment in a clinical trial is not possible.
Potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of treatment.
Providing the investigational medical product will not interfere with investigational trials that could support a medical product’s development or marketing approval for the treatment indication.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/expanded-access
JH was a Company rep at the Cummings renewal negotiation. Smooth as silk.
Sometimes an exec isn't paid for what they do but rather for what they allow their boss to avoid having to do himself.
Note: Final trial conference scheduled for 8/15/23. Trial order 8/29.
They've been posting openings for 11 months, since they closed that "substantial financing round" as Squalus.
"A European pharmaceutical company will discuss Brilacidin in their internal licensing meeting in 3 weeks. I know this direct from the company and not from Ipix."
Monday, March 27, 2023 10:53:32 PM
So how'd it go?
Let me guess.....you really didn't expect to hear from them about it.
When was the last zero post day? I'm reminded of the Monty Python parrot.
Appreciate the response. At least in Schwab's case the "limit orders only" rule has not always been true:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=159899264
FWIW IPIX was on the OTCQB at the time of that post and was seling for ~20 cents.
I've never placed a limit order for any stock.
Different strokes.....
"I can't even buy or sell CTIX from my online brokerage account because they are pink. I have to call them."
That's from a post from you the last time this Company went pink. Do you know whether it's true this time?
I just tested Schwab and they'll take a limit buy but not a market order.
IPIX is not an Ehrlich client and neither are IPIX's shareholders.....he's not acting in the capacity of a CPA in his positions.
Here is the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct:
https://us.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/standards/codeofconduct/downloadabledocuments/2014december15contentasof2016august31codeofconduct.pdf
Open it up and do a browser search for "complaint" but before you do you should realize that the Code is written for the membership and not the investing public. Realizing that will make it easy to understand why the half dozen or so mentions of "complaint" refer to code issues regarding complaints made BY members and not ABOUT them.
Fun fact: Leo's CPA obligations, if he has any under the Code, are to report improprieties to the Institute or the IPIX Board of Directors :o)
That's funny in more ways than one (they would likely be HIS OWN improprieties, for one).
He does have real transparency obligations under the Exchange Act. If you think he has fallen short in meeting them you should complain to the SEC.....or, more practically and likely to greater effect, to the man himself (or the Board...more jokes...tip your waitress). He even has transparency obligations under the OTC Pink Guidelines, although their enforcement is sketchy.
"ask him why he didn’t announce or PR about taking the Company to Pink Sheets and off OTCQB?"
He let the previous self-inflicted fiasco with Nevada that resulted in a similar tier change go by without so much as a peep and obviously doesn't feel he owes the public any explanations about this current fumble.
And if you hadn't noticed OTCMarkets shared its own closed mouth approach to public information with me when I asked THEM about the downgrade. FWIW I see no obvious reason for it. Due dates for fee payments are unpublished. The 4/17 PR about the Nature Communications article was published on the IPIX News and Disclosure page. That page is free to OTCQB companies but they require a fee from Pinks.
It's the OTC baby and it offers tight lipped CEO's all the cover they could possibly ask for.
Anil keeps trying to push that peanut:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nanoviricides-using-unique-technology-platform-175904714.html
At the 2:48 mark he mumbles something about the moon, green cheese and the flu....and at some point he does a shout out to Gene Seymour and Uncle Miltie.
"Investors aren’t owed anything."
....by the little otc companies they invest in or the OTCMarkets operators that provide them a place to swap their wampum.....at least in terms of the information they provide. (It's one of the reasons that some otc companies prefer to stay there even when they don't have to...the transparency that is required by the real exchanges just gets a wink and a nod on the otc.)
Just ask em:......
It is some stupid shit.
The PR makes no mention of Sexton, who is the President according to OTCM, and a new President has been appointed (presumably by Sexton, the sole Director) but the PR goes out under the name of Stauber, identified by OTCM as the Company Counsel.
The PR says "the Company is changing its status and is no longer a shell" and will "file the appropriate documents with the OTC Markets to reflect that there has been a change of control of the Company".
And "A discussion of the Company’s business operations and services and updated financial information will be included in the March 31, 2023, quarterly filing", which implies that there won't even be an Annual Report.
I GUESS the basis that they are going to provide for no longer being a shell is explained here:
1. Discharger Capital LLC, as part of its contribution to the Joint Venture, subject to a closing, is for a call center platform for the establishment of a call center in Cebu Philippines to add to its management program a lead generation component, for its own business and for third parties.
2. Discharger Capital LLC contributes to the joint venture, initially management contracts that resulted in net earning to it of approximately $70,000, with the value of the initial contribution of approximately $140,000.
So the "more than nominal operations and assets, not consisting solely of cash or cash equivalents" contributed by the new guy that are required to escape shell status are.....
1. a call center in the Philipines that the new guy doesn't own yet and
2. some management contracts that he values at $140K (which provide "management services to private companies").
IF those contracts are ongoing and it can be shown that they in fact generated $70K in income they MAY qualify as more than nominal assets. I'd like to see some proof.
IIRC you've called this a lottery ticket. With a lottery ticket at least you know when they're going to hold the lottery. This thing has always been "just wait" and it continues to be that. And while waiting ticket holders have to put up with a lot of nonsense. Trying to dissect it is impossible....there's no way to tell what's fact and what's fiction.
Discharger Capital's website doesn't exist, which is only one step below AIMH's:
https://aimriteholdingscorp.com/
"The PR that came out in late March was never released on the wires, and isnt on otcmarkets."
To hear them tell it they couldn't publish it on OTCMarkets:
"Until the Company has completed its application and complied with the other requirements of the OTC Market, the Company is unable to use their OTC Disclosure & News Service to immediately distribute the information contained herein."
"It is our present intent to continue to make adequate current information about the Company available pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Amended Rule 15c2-11 and to have our securities eligible for public quotations on an ongoing basis under the then applicable rules."
That may be their intention but so far they're failing to follow thru on it.....The OTCMarkets Annual Report is two weeks overdue. Is it possible that the Company is unable to use their OTC Disclosure & News Service to distribute that as well?
Unquoted.
"Identify which of these are truth or illusion."
"> Brilacidin has received 2 Fast Track and 1 Qualified Infectious Disease Product designations from USA FDA."
That's BOTH. Those designations WERE received but their benefits have been, at best, illusory.
Per the 2015 10K:
"For this and other reasons, such as its high activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (a leading cause of ABSSSI) brilacidin received FDA designation as a Qualified Infectious Disease Product (QIDP) in November 2014."
"Receiving QIDP designation means that Brilacidin is now eligible for additional FDA incentives in the approval and marketing path, including Fast Track designation and Priority Review for development and a five-year extension of market exclusivity."
Per the 2016 10k:
"The FDA awarded a Fast Track designation to Brilacdin-OM for oral mucositis in November 2015."
Per the 2018 10K (and 2019 and 2020 10Ks):
"Certain of our product candidates, such as Brilacidin for the indication of Oral Mucositis and Kevetrin for the indication of ovarian cancer, have been awarded Fast Track designation."
Per the 2021 10K:
"Certain of our product candidates, such as Brilacidin for the indications of SARS-CoV-2 and Oral Mucositis, and Kevetrin for the indication of ovarian cancer, have been awarded Fast Track designation."
Per the 2022 10K:
"Brilacidin, for the indications of SARS-CoV-2 and Oral Mucositis, has been awarded Fast Track designation."
Per FDA.gov:
"Fast track is a process designed to facilitate the development, and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need. The purpose is to get important new drugs to the patient earlier."
"Fast Track designation must be requested by the drug company."
"Once a drug receives Fast Track designation, early and frequent communication between the FDA and a drug company is encouraged throughout the entire drug development and review process. The frequency of communication assures that questions and issues are resolved quickly, often leading to earlier drug approval and access by patients."
A Fast Track designation needs to be used to have value.....its benefits to the sponsor of a drug that is not actively developing that drug are as useless as t__ts on a bull.
B-OM?
B-CoV?
Kevetrin???
If a benefit can't be shown, why list it as if it's an accomplishment? The Fast Track designation is "a process designed to facilitate the development, and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need" and not designed to be a promotional device. All the medical needs that B-OM, B-CoV and Kevetrin were being developed to treat remain unmet.
There are links in the paper that are very interesting. Specifically, while much is made of a paper having been peer reviewed I'm not accustomed to seeing the actual peer reviews published. In this case they were.
Scroll down to "Supplementary information" and click on Peer Review File.
"Looks like CEO Leo didn’t want to be listed on the QB platform anymore and conserve the money for his paycheck….."
Good catch.
The last time that thought was expressed it turned out that the true explanation was a failure to maintain Active status in Nevada. That doesn't explain it this time, but it's not clear to me that the drop from OTCQB to Pink was related to non-payment of the $15K annual fee. It's a substantial fee but he has the money.
It's hard to know when fees are due....
"3) Payment of Fees. The Company shall pay an Annual Fee in respect of each year in which
its securities continue to be traded on OTCQB. The Annual Fee is set forth in Section 3.2 of
these OTCQB Standards. The Annual Fee is due 30 days prior to the beginning of each new
annual service period."
FYI, nothing OBVIOUS here:
4. Removal, Withdrawal or Suspension of OTCQB Companies
https://www.otcmarkets.com/files/OTCQB_Standards.pdf
"In the event a Company ceases to be traded on OTCQB for any reason, no portion of its
previously paid ongoing Annual Fee will be refunded."
It's interesting that the Company remains on the OTCQB Venture company list....appears it will stay there until the end of the quarter when it should be removed for the lack of an OTCQB status.
"Investor Relations spoke to Licensing and confirmed plans to discuss Ipix B product in a April meeting. I have some contact with both responsible Directors in the EU company."
Are these the people with whom you had contact?
Monika Schuessler, Ph.D.
Head of Business Development & Licensing
P: +41 61 606 11 11
E-mail: licensing@basilea.com
Peer Nils Schröder, Ph.D.
Head of Corporate Communications & Investor Relations
P: +41 61 606 11 02
E-mail: media_relations@basilea.com
E-mail: investor_relations@basilea.com
"DISCLOSURE: Zacks SCR has received compensation from the issuer directly, from an investment manager, or from an investor relations consulting firm, engaged by the issuer, for providing research coverage for a period of no less than one year. Research articles, as seen here, are part of the service Zacks SCR provides and Zacks SCR receives quarterly payments totaling a maximum fee of up to $40,000 annually for these services provided to or regarding the issuer."
Send me $40K and I'll say ALMOST anything.
Diwan's name does not appear. Nor is their any mention of his relationship with the licensee.
And the Zach's Phd puts forth the same shaky proposition that NNVC's friend at Benzinga offered up:
"This is an important inflection point for NanoViricides as it is now transitioning to clinical-stage operations following a long development timeline as a pre-clinical company."
It is? NNVC is licensing 2 drugs to "someone else" to conduct the trials....the licensee will be conducting clinical-stage operations, not NNVC.
Some might say that that's just semantics. I prefer to call it misleading. And it's no small thing. Investors have been waiting for NNVC to run clinical trial for a long, long time....why aren't they actually doing it themselves, instead of just intimating that they are?
I didn't miss this.....
"Karveer has begun clinical development and evaluation of those two drugs and has obtained regulatory permissions to conduct clinical evaluation of them in India"
.....but it doesn't answer the question.
We've been we'll seeing for well over a decade.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nnvc-nanoviricides-technology-ready-enter-120100683.html
Don't ignore the Disclosure.
"the MM's are playing games!!!!!"
No doubt about it. The MMs took all of the cushions off their couches, turned those couches over and shook em and then took all the change that fell out and used it to mess with today's $900US worth of trading.
"My buy today again when in as a sell"
Do I have to explain this again? What you call your order has nothing to do with how Ihub defines it.
"Trade definitions are based on the mid-price and are indicative only"
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/innovation-pharmaceuticals-qb-IPIX/trades
"If they decide to make some deal with Ipix I am sure it will take weeks or 2-3 months to finish. This could be in the same time AlfaSigma starts the Ulcerative Proctitis trial and Ipix receives a milestone payment."
I would have thought that you would be on top of the PUBLIC information.
Per the 10Q:
"the Company has been advised by Alfasigma that a Phase 2 multinational clinical trial conduct is estimated to start in 2H2023."
Per the AS agreement:
"Development Milestones
For the UP/UPS Indication:
(1) US$ 1 million, upon Commencement of the First Phase III Clinical Trial"
So the milestone is NOT for a Phase 2, which is estimated to start in 2H2023, which is in 2-8 months. Care to underestimate when the Phase 3 trial....the one that matters...will start?
Any ideas how Leo will spend that US$ 1 million? He's had his hands on more than that MANY times since he first asserted that "Completion of formulation/analytical development work, clinical trial supply manufacturing, and subsequent progression into clinical trials, are pending securing sufficient drug supply and working capital."
A cool million won't begin to put a dent in those activities. Think about that the next time you put it out there like it's a dream come true.
And what's keeping them from "securing sufficient drug supply"?
"We will see."
We've already seen.
Could be worse. Could be Oily Discharge llc.
Is the market seeing through this latest sham?
Can the price of a stock be manipulated without it being traded?
Wait, maybe all of today's trading activity was naked short selling??? Or naked short interest covering???
I think this sums it up...
" All we need to know is that Diwan takes care of Diwan first."
....but there's a lot going on here.
Covid is losing its grip on India if the WHO's numbers are to be believed and there's a geographical limit on that very generous sounding 70% royalty:
"Karveer is not required to pay any minimum royalties, nor any license maintenance fees. Should Karveer manufacture the drugs for sales by NanoViricides outside the Territory, there will be no royalty payable on such sale of the drug products, and NanoViricides shall pay Karveer for such drug product purchases from Karveer at a rate that will be negotiated from time to time between the Parties."
But the only real issue is whether the science is as compelling as you once found it to be. Is it still? Because only if it is should NNVC investors start counting their chickens or worrying about things like who gets what. If it isn't then Diwan has only created a new way to get money from NNVC to Diwan.
"Yesterday the Director Investor Relations in the EU company confirms contact with the Licensing responsible and the plan to discuss Ipix B product in a meeting this month. I am surprised they are so open in communications but I am clear about my interest. They say they will revert after the meeting but I will be super surprised if they do this especially if they want to talk more with Ipix."
What does this mean in English?
"the Director Investor Relations in the EU company confirms contact with the Licensing responsible"
Same question re:
"They say they will revert after the meeting but I will be super surprised if they do this especially if they want to talk more with Ipix."
I don't understand either statement.
"However, what interests me most about the post is this: "Discontinued: Intestinal infections; Ophthalmic infections; Ulcerative colitis.""
The Company appears to disagree re UC in the latest 10Q:
"further advancement in the indication of ulcerative colitis requires conduct of additional formulation development work prior to Phase 1 testing of that oral formulation. Completion of formulation/analytical development work, clinical trial supply manufacturing, and subsequent progression into clinical trials, are pending securing sufficient drug supply and working capital."
"Pending" and "discontinued" are very different.
And the latest IPIX PR says at least one ophthalmic infection is not at all discontinued:
"Additional antifungal research on Brilacidin’s potential to treat fungal keratitis was presented at the 2023 Gordon Research Conference on the Immunology of Fungal Infections (GRCIFI), held January 22-27, 2023, in Galveston Texas."
Springer needs to check their sources, don't they?