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.
REDDIT / WAKKSTREETBETS https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetbetsnew/comments/m7njik/igic_is_a_deep_fucking_value_play_ape_eat_tendies/
$IGIC (commons) & $IGICW (warrants)
Growing at 31% YoY
Extremely Moaty Specialty Insurance Business
Family-owned company (~29% of outstanding shares)
No debt
Not affected negatively by Covid (so not dependent upon reopening)
Specialized insurance (high profit margins)
Insurance rates are the highest they've ever been (we're seeing 20-30% gains in premiums)
Profitable
20 Year old business
Founder still very active in the company (he's 87)
Pays a dividend
$380m in cash (their M.C. is $345m CRAZY)
Repurchasing shares
Has warrants (they're a 1-1 with an $11.50 Strike)
buying a big block under $9 . then going to take a nap. the reverse trend will wake me up. BUUUllliish from now
is already afternoon and is nothing exciting in this pig - huge volume for nothing - good news for nothing - about to take the small loss - and if they come up with an offering we are screwed . bad entry and bad dog pig stock i regrette. amazing huge sell orders in the ask !!!! ALl day !!!
Taking position in $BURG will run up from this levels . bottom and some one grab shares last night and this morning . Up from here in momentum play coming very Volatile
Yes is matter of time . Stock needs shorts to fuel up. Setting up to find $7 and stay. Next wave chart setting up to the run up - cover shorty
How about the merger there were some news about it - I don’t get it
great find -- totally a manipulation !!!!
Agree that scenario should be the one in honesty. The used a big statement already a commitment to those words ""Significant Discovery "and make a big deal special CC and they issued 15 millions in a direct offering - in logic of those terms this should be based in something real and backed ! So many scams in the penny world because that what it looks so far shady or too good to be truth.
In the other hands you have investment banking putting trust of 15 millions on a direct offering .
I am holding and watching closely .
any one have something to say about the background of CEO in Texas ?
looks for me like a bear trap this morning price fluctuation.light volume .Still a low floater even with those extra shares, just need more volume than usual to push it. Some hedge fund got that offering and owns 5% past this offering bottom reached. Interesting business model in Asia works they expend Lots of $$ in luxury goods.will buy in dips and accumulate solid position for the momentum day. scalping and adding sounds good.Only this month couple of interesting strong fluctuations before offering range above 2 digits.
how do you know the offering is closed ?
can you copy and paste the news article ? thanks in advance
hi we haven't seeing you around since the drop. any new ideas on this unexpected drop and not spike ?.
what is your analysis on price action for today taking from today close that it will be the base price for split .
I am surprised is not higher at 8am fro 0.34 cents
Right on that . is to bring value and make it easy to a company to go public . People are in panic because of RS they have til August to have the price over $1 . the RS is too bring value to the merger of one company listed and the other one wanted to go public , clear !
great Dragon52 U are helping with another opinion . I agree
unjustified drop of price Imo RS scared soft hands
I see a lot of buyers and big positions taking place since this morning price wanted to push up but I see MM work .
where do U see the PS going before merger completes and RS . If price goes up more PS after RS.
you are doing great job catching in right Dragon 52, thumbs up .
What I understand is that RS will happen before the merger is finished?right.
Is in their convenience any way that the price goes above the current levels before the events RS & Merger.
Interesting the point of after the deal is done with share reduction and valuation it will be better if let the market dictate the right price and with some kind of PR and just by an industry that is taking its shape and developing the industry has not even a price in yet
yes it did run and got news on Friday . I am surprised is not moving based on expectations of news and is Friday after been down couple of days and price stabilizing even the sell pressure has been gone is trading steady in a channel. hopefully later on during the day it gets some momentum waiting for next week news . still believe they will come up with news next week not too much in advance so the price raised is not going back to less than a $1.
strange silence from management it has been already days without PR or so. Hopefully the silence is a good sign
Thank You for your hard work we all here trying to find out closer to the outcome.
great job , thanks again for sharing it.
Arrivederci
hahah LMAO this guy dont know what he is talking about , sorry .
check and follow Wurdmeister in Stocktwits very interesting and worth it they are 3 bulls that are following right or wrong . we need to hear every body . is not time before friday . Bull here and anxious
holding 89000 shares @ 0.27 I wish we could get tip out of the end of dilution. we all asking our self's. brutal down side till now but at the same time holding strong at this levels . Tomorrow Friday I will expect some short covering going through the weekend for Monday and may it ejects a push up
news . done deal !!!!!!!!!
CEO Mr. Alexei J. Marko.PR Dpt Update on litigation with CardiAQ.response to Ladenburg. misleading . That keep as well stock down in a trend. is in many message boards , tweets and in the street . Mr Marko help your self .and the stock.take any doubts away
Bought back @ 2.11 2.16 total shares 25000 holding theme
holding up the stock on low bids volume .
lots of pressure in the sell side @ 1.17
charts volume momentum timing news all looking good !!
God Bless for a happy days of trading
excuse me Sr . do you have any other way here to share data and info ,links and any other? than copy and paste or typing .
the rest drama bla bla bla rumors and personal opinions in a board were even a chick is fishing for 100 shares..
reality is what is happening in court and our swing trades to capitalize in dramatics like you.
in since Mark C placed his bet !!!!
Trust me I am coming from few months back - so DD has been done !!!!!!!
holding a substantial bulk of shares and options calls Nov strike $5
and swing trading other smaller bulk to increase my holdings until final word.
Placed a bet on Oct calls " leaving theme as a gamble " to be expired
only few ones worth to share in private message - solid opinions ******
my advise get in private message group or stay chatting with newbies.
Buona fortuna e ci vediamo . in bocca al lupo
by the way---> I waisted 5 minutes in placing a buying order in ARNA answering to U.
GLTA
With no settlement at hand, things are heating up ahead of Vringo's (NYSE: VRNG) jury trial with Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) which is scheduled to start tomorrow 10/16 at 10AM ET. Below is a rundown of the latest in the case (Since 10/12):
Oct. 12, 2012 MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller. 425 MOTION to Seal its Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment along with Exhibits 8, 11-19, 22-24, 27-32, 34-39, 45, 53-54, 56. (ecav, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
Oct. 12, 2012 MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller. 296 MOTION to Seal Portions of Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Marketing and High-Level Non-Technical Matters Related to Historical Click-Through Rate, and Exhibits F, H, I and J to the Declaration of Joshua, 316 MOTION to Seal Portions of Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony from Stephen L. Becker and Certain Materials Filed in Support Thereof, 331 MOTION to Seal the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion in Limine to Preclude Non-Comparable License Agreements along with Exhibits 1 and 2, 312 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 3 to the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence, 338 MOTION to Seal the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone along with Exhibits 1 and 2 (ecav, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
Oct. 12, 2012 704 Defendants' Proposed Pre-Trial Jury Instructions Proposed Jury Instructions by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
Oct. 12, 2012 705 ORDER NUMBER 2 - PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS: Before the Court are remaining motions to exclude evidence and witnesses from trial in the above-styled matter filed by both Plaintiff and Defendants. These matters have been fully briefed by the Parties. The Court finds that oral arguments of these motions will not aid itsdecisional process. Having reviewed the motions and related materials, the Court finds these matters ripe for judicial determination. For the reasons stated herein, and pursuant to the inherent authority to make evidentiary rulings prior to trial, see Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38,41 n.4(1984), the Court resolves the Parties' motions as outlined: Plaintiffs First Motion in Limine as to Items 2 and 6 is DEFERRED. The Court's reasoning with respect to the Lycos agreements is equally applicable to the seven agreements Defendants wish to offer, which by their own admission are non-comparable, and are again solely offered for the purpose of showing a preference by Google for lump sum royalty payments. Non-comparable licenses cannot be used to determine either the form or amount of a reasonable royalty. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above and under the Court's discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403, Plaintiffs Second Motion in Limine to Preclude Non-Comparable License Agreements between Google and other third parties, as outlined in Plaintiffs memorandum in support of this motion, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Second Motion in Limine to exclude the Google-Meyer Agreement is DENIED. Additionally, the Court's reasoning with respect to the Google-Meyer Agreement is equally applicable to the Google-Disney Agreement. As there is a dispute to whether the technology underlying the Google-Disney Agreements is comparable, the jury must resolve the dispute in the context of determining a reasonable royalty for damages. Consequently, Plaintiffs Second Motion in Limine to exclude the Google-Disney Agreement is DENIED. Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone as t o any testimony using a "yardstick" or "proxy" methodology or the use of the real estate valuations analogies in this context. Dr. Ugone is free to present expert opinion using established methods of calculating damages, including the hypothetical negotiation approach guided by the Georgia-Pacific Factors, which he purports to use. Having reviewed the motions and related pleadings, the Court finds that Dr. Ungars new theory of invalidity is not violative of Rule 26 procedures. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has neither been surprised nor prejudiced by this new theory under Fourth Circuit precedent on this issue. See Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwm-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion as to Dr. Ungars' new theory of invalidity is DENIED. At Final-Pre Trial Conference, Defendants essentially asked for reconsideration of the Court's previous denial of their Motion in Limine No. 2. Having again reviewed the relevant case law, the Court declines to reconsider its decision. I/P Engine, through its damages expert, is prepared to offer evidence at trial that "patented technology forms a substantial basis of the consumer demand of the accused products" through discovered documents showing increased revenue specifically attributed to patented technologies, presumably reflecting increased consumer demand. The sufficiency of this evidence in determining a reasonable royalty is a question for the jury. If questions arise as to whether Dr. Becker's trial testimony adequately supports application of the Entire Market Value Rule, they can be addressed through cross examination or through relevant trial motions. Accordingly, motion for reconsideration of the Court's previous denial of their Motion in Limine No. 2 is DENIED. Having reviewed the motion and related pleadings, the Court finds that objections to Dr. Becker's testimony are best resolved at trial during the course of examination as they generally go to the weight of the evidence and should be resolve d by the jury. In summary: Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Stephen L. Becker (ECF No. 319) is DENIED. DENYING 293 Motion to Dismiss; GRANTING 299 Motion in Limine; DENYING 319 Motion to Exclude; DENYING 327 Motion to Exclude; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 333 Motion in Limine; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 340 Motion to Exclude; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 357 Motion in Limine, as outlined in this Order. (See Order for entire Specifics) Entered and filed 10/12/12. (Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 10/12/12). (ecav, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 706 MOTION to Seal Portions Of Exhibit 1 To The OBrien Declaration In Support Of Defendants Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Portions Of Dr. Frieders Second Updated Expert Report by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 707 Memorandum in Support re 706 MOTION to Seal Portions Of Exhibit 1 To The OBrien Declaration In Support Of Defendants Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Portions Of Dr. Frieders Second Updated Expert Report filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 708 NOTICE by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation re 706 MOTION to Seal Portions Of Exhibit 1 To The OBrien Declaration In Support Of Defendants Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Portions Of Dr. Frieders Second Updated Expert Report (Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 709 Emergency MOTION to Strike and For Sanctions and To Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Expert Report In Violation Of the Courts October 9 Order by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 710 Memorandum in Support re 709 Emergency MOTION to Strike and For Sanctions and To Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Expert Report In Violation Of the Courts October 9 Order filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 711 Declaration re 710 Memorandum in Support, of Emily O'Brien in Support of Defendants Emergency Motion For Sanctions and To Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Expert Report In Violation Of the Courts October 9 Order by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 712 Consent MOTION to Expedite and Memorandum in Support of Consent Motion to Expedite Briefing on Defendants Emergency Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Expert Report In Violation Of The Courts October 9 Order by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 14, 2012 713 Reply to Motion re 701 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Plaintiffs Motion for Review of Judge Leonards Ruling on I/P Engines Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2012)
Oct. 15, 2012 Notice of Correction re 710 Memorandum in Support - The filing user has been notified to file a separate Certificate of Service. The certificate of service filed is not signed. (rsim, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Oct. 15, 2012 Notice of Correction re 713 Reply to Motion - The filing user has been notified to file a separate Certificate of Service. The certificate of service filed is not signed. (rsim, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Oct. 15, 2012 714 CERTIFICATE of Service (Amended) re 710 Memorandum in Support, by Stephen Edward Noona on behalf of AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation (Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Oct. 15, 2012 715 CERTIFICATE of Service (Amended) re 713 Reply to Motion, by Stephen Edward Noona on behalf of AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation (Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Oct. 15, 2012 716 Opposition to 700 MOTION for Reconsideration re 697 Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,,,,,,,,, denial of I/P Engines Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Judge Leonard's Ruling on Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Noona, Stephen) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Oct. 15, 2012 MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller. 453 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #5 along with Exhibits 1 and 2, 436 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #1 along with Exhibits 5-6 and 11-12, 465 MOTION to Seal Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone, 449 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #4 along with Exhibits 1 and 2, 457 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Stephen L. Becker along with Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11, 462 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants Motion to Preclude Dr. Frieder from Testifying Regarding Untimely Opinions along with Exhibits 1-3 and 5, 441 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #2 along with Exhibits 1 and 2, 445 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #3 along with Exhibits 3-11 (rsim, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Oct. 15, 2012 MOTION REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller. 429 MOTION to Seal (1) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence; (2) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's Second Motion in Limine to MOTION to Seal (1) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence; (2) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's Second Motion in Limine to MOTION to Seal (1) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence; (2) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's Second Motion in Limine to (rsim, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
I hate the attention ! this guys from that building on front ..... what is it ? MERCK aah?
they fricking keep looking at me and my shares ! and my options!!!!!!
they are every were ! behind the walls in the books in the labs ...
they want us little peregrines !!!!!!!!
for few billions!
Are Merck & Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (PPHM)_Merck Meeting Friday In NYC_Acquisition Coming believes Sierra World Equity Review
Rogerabc claims that is a Forbs new article .
recently posted in Yahoo.
copy and paste .
In bocca al lupo
long PPHM
Does this mean there where no placebo problems at all?
No, it means there where no problems at all with the control arm and it's placebo labeling and distribution but is doesn't exclude that people in Bavi arms didn't receive some placebo. However, it is very unlikely they did because for that to happen we need more then just coding and labeling errors, for that we would also need more delivery of placebo and therefor somewhere production and ordering errors because one cannot label what he hasn't received. The other way around it is excluded that control arm patients received Bavi because there is no Bavi in circulation in these arms.
What coding discrepancies are remaining possible then?
The most obvious would be that patients didn't receive the 1mg and 3mg doses as assigned and that symmetric mix-ups occurred. For each error in the 1mg arm there is one in the 3mg arm. It would be hard to believe that docetaxel would have been labeled Bavi or the other way around? Normally the SOC comes in standard pre-labeled and only the Bavi must be dealt with by the CRO. All arms receive docetaxel. What could also be is that some 1mg or 3mg Bavi wasn't administered at all but then there would be some spare Bavi around somewhere or that some patients received higher doses but then Avid must have delivered them or they must have been taking from patients with follow-up treatment. All possible but unlikely compared to symmetric dose mix up.
How did Peregrine discover this?
Peregrine checked the patient's sample test results and patient treatment code assignments and by correlating them found the discrepancies for some, not all, patients.
In English please!
In a randomized double blinded clinical trial patients have a treatment code that is assigned randomly and that classifies a patient in a treatment group that receives a certain treatment. This is called patients treatment code assignment and neither Peregrine, Clinics or patients can derive what arm they are part of from this coding. During the clinical trial sample tests are performed and their results recorded. When correlating these test results of each patient with the coding it becomes possible to keep track if the patient really received what the coding indicated he/she should have received. Peregrine discovered there where major discrepancies between these sample test results and the coding for some patients in the Bavi arms of the trial.
When did Peregrine discover this, why so late?
Peregrine discovered this on and about SEPT 20, 2012 as they claim in their lawsuit filing. The data was unblinded in MAY 2012, so 3 to 4 months after unblinding. The holiday season and the fact that reviewing clinical trial data is a hard job and needs a lot of time are certainly the major causes. Peregrine was, by FDA test standards, not allowed any involvement or data access during the clinical trial and could therefore not be aware of these discrepancies any earlier. It therefor only discovered them during review, part of the course of preparing for an end-of-phase II meeting with regulatory authorities (FDA).
Has this anything to do with patients censoring?
No, the recent reworked republishing of old articles about patients censoring have completely nothing to do with this. The best argumentation to refute these unprofessional, often manipulative, articles is found in this post that explains in point 7 that Peregrine is not in charge of censoring in a double blind gold standard clinical trial but that this is done by the IDMC and clinicians. Furthermore is discloses the comparison of the censoring in a study that is 90% stage 4 death sentence patients to other studies of stage 1,2,3 which is really forcing ones case. Finally it emphasized that censoring is not a bad thing and occurs for many reasons including the obvious one that patients die before they can get a course of treatment or placebo.
Who is this CRO and why did they hire them?
Peregrine has 3 Bavi related Randomized clinical trials. For this FDA Gold Standard Randomized, Double Blinded 2nd Line NSLC clinical trial they hired a contractor, Clinical Supplies Management Inc (e-mail). CRO's are licensed by the FDA to perform these kinds of Gold Standard clinical trials and need to be hired because Peregrine itself is not allowed any direct or indirect (3rd party auditing on their behave) access to the data as long as it hasn't been unblinded. The CRO has to make sure of that and will not allow other parties to look into the data either (clinics, patients,etc). CSM is a US based company (Fargo, N.D.) which Peregrine can act upon in the US without complex and long oversea procedures. This master contractor does as well the randomized patients assignment as the coding/labeling and distribution for the 3 arms within the boundaries of applicable FDA clinical trial procedures.
Is Avid involved?
No, Avid just delivers Bavi to the CRO for labeling and distribution. For Avid to be involved it must have delivered something else then Bavi. If it was the case Peregrine wouldn't have started a lawsuit pointing out the problem and assigning the blame.
What about the trial?
Quote:
Plaintiff: Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Inc (our attorney)
Defendant: Clinical Supplies Management Inc and e-mail
Case Number: 8:2012cv01608
Filed: September 24, 2012
Court: California Central District Court
Presiding Judge: Josephine Staton Tucker
Referring Judge: Arthur Nakazato
Full Filing html text
What do we learn from the filing?
First it confirms that we are really talking about discrepancies in the data and that this company was only responsible for 1 of 3 the trials (3 = 2 x Lung Cancer and 1 time Pancreatic). It confirms that there is no impact on any other Bavi trials. It removes all uncertainties about who is claimed responsible for what, a US or overseas contractor, whether there are more then one direct contractors, and it takes Avid completely out of the equation.
Secondly and most importantly that Peregrine files for "Neglect", not sabotage, malicious intend, etc. This is important because Peregrine asks for damages due to loses/cost/expenses related to all this and the fact that it had to rescind it's prior announcements resulting in loss of goodwill (e.g.: load retraction) but ONLY ADDITIONALLY for CSM's breach(s) of contract that may cause a delay in bringing Bavituximab to market (that includes doing the clinical trial all over).
What now!
Peregrine intends to communicate further as soon as it is able to determine the impact of this issue, in weeks not months. An undisclosed external body is conducting an investigation (probably the FDA). For now Peregrine advises not to rely on previous announcements.
Personal Evaluation
As the cards are on the table at this moment my concern is not about the legal office investigations, class actions, the price per share, the loan retraction, the cash flow or what soever. Not even about reputation loss or creditability, those are easily grasped excuses while everything shows Peregrine had to pick a contractor out of an FDA licensed list and stay out of the picture until the end of PII.
The chronology of facts from SEPT 10 to SEPT 21 even confirms that on SEPT 12, two days after the quarterly and CC, Peregrine wanted even to go to Credit Swiss and that only on SEPT 19th they must have known for sure. Given the time needed to talk with legal counsel, set-up a strategy to address this, write PR's etc, AND BEFORE ALL to avoid people trading on leaks they very probably planned the announcement on black Monday at 7:30am as they did.
In my mind and based on reasoning i discarded all types of Peregrine BoD/Management and employees involvement in a set-up to make personal profit out of this situation based on stock or option trading. If there was a reasonable chance that this would be the case the SEC would have announced an investigation to the public by now as they always communicate early and call for information. All those riding that track want the keep the attention from the basis of the case so they can use this window of opportunity of uncertainty till OCT 28 to play the stock, hoping that most people will act as bears! They like to throw speculation, assumptions, conjection or words like that around for the smallest peace of information in a detailed reasoning while their own cases, advertised as one liners and, are mostly based on assumptions or self proclaimed trued such as that management are scammers, Bavi doesn't work, or others they can probably shuffle through uninformed reader throat's. As to the newbies on this board, we know they always show up and why. By their comments we know they hardly know that Peregrine is a bio-pharm company. Sell now, it's going to go down, watch and learn, the next dip is coming, etc, etc Saving us from ... from what actually! From keeping our shares! Why is it so d..m important to them that we longs sell our shares? Why are they prepared to lie and spread nonsense to achieve that goal! Why do they not just buy option calls and leave us alone, no, they specifically want us to sell our shares! Why, Why, Why!
I concentrate ONLY on the possible impact on announced results of the clinical trial. The market has reacted as if the results are going to be worse, possibly because it often is in such cases. Of course they reacted in minutes after the announcement. Many on here commented on the large volume in the next days and the fact that the stock isn't trading at 10 cent! Probably the market did the D&D and came to the conclusion that they may have overreacted.
I posted on black Monday, and I repost now with more up to date information, that i see no way for the results to get worse, on the contrary they should get better. I requested for scenario's where the results would get worse but saw no posts, unless posts where all kinds of statements of the sources mentioned at the top of these post had to be unvalidated to make the scenario's work. I am still interested in a post with a clear and detailed scenario which would result in worse results and which acknowledges the facts, such as PR text and lawsuit filing text.
from yahoo
by Rogerabc
Questions & Answers on Peregrine Discrepancies
What is this all about
It is about Peregrine discovering major Discrepancies in unblinded clinical trial data which makes the previously announced results unreliable for investment decisions.
Who discovered this
Peregrine's team during review of the data that was unblinded in May 2012. It was not discovered by a potential partner as part of data review, nor by the CRO (Clinical Supplies Management Inc), nor by the FDA (that data was never presented to the FDA at that point).
What exactly was discovered
Major discrepancies in coding, not anything else such as wrong survival data, problems with censored patients, the use of a wrong substance, etc.
What coding then?
Coding in labeling of Treatment Groups, that is, which patients must receive what treatment. There are 3 arms to which a patients can be assigned, the control arm that receives SOC+placebo (SOC=docetaxel), the Bavi 1mg/Kg and 3mg/Kg arms that receive SOC+Bavi.
Is all lost?
No, on the contrary, all could even end up better. The randomized assignments of patients to the 3 control arms is not involved. That would have been a problem because if it was it would almost for sure invalidate the trial. The control arm is not affected either, which means that MOS of the control arm is and stays