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.
I don’t believe anyone would doubt that approval equals cash. But approval remains well off into late 3rd quarter (which began today) or even into the 4th quarter. So the $64,000 question is where does that non-dilutive funding come from in between now and then? If not, we will get seriously diluted over the next several months.
I’m convinced there is going to a large influx of cash shortly after approval.
My big take away, it’s very obvious they need a change-over in management.
The big problem with the presentation at the ASM was there was no reason or rationale to suggest the stock price would increase over the next several months. Yes, longer term there is a value proposition, but it was impossible to make a near term argument.
What ever happened to approval in March? Was there a calendar recall that I missed because the months were placed out of order by the printer?
Nice tie by the way.
Horse, I was thinking about you today while munching on a cannoli at the ASM. I was actually going to take the serving plate full at the end, but didn’t know where to drop the gun.
The MTD is likely to be granted.
As I said Hoffy, not that you have any friends in the legal profession, but if you do, want to make sure I avoid a Missouri licensed lawyer with a conflict.
The cases is already drafted, just has to reflect Missouri statutes rather than Va.
More from experience.
I think they’re called SLAPPS or something like that. I rarely if ever come across a management team that blames themselves. And I’ve worked with a LOT of management teams over a very long career.
DC is hot and HUMID in the Summer, like in the tropics!. But great time to visit is in Spring and Fall, if that’s the next time they hold a shareholders meeting.
I don’t know if it’s worth traveling any great distance. But worthwhile for someone that’s nearby.
Thanks. I almost decided just to call in, but I like being in the room just to get the atmospherics.
That’s my biggest disappointment, that they have been able to strike a deal after all this time.
Look Hoffy, since we decided to change the venue from Virginia to instead filing in Missouri, I’ll have to avoid having to retain someone that knows you. I intend to do that this week, so let me know if there’s someone you recommend? Maybe someone with an office in KC instead of Stl?
There is an underlying reality that they need some form of non-dilutive funding, otherwise we’ll see more of the same in terms of dilution and pressure on the share price.
I would describe her demeanor as more relaxed, at least that was my impression. I also got a changing of the guard vibe, but that’s just my intuition.
She’s always been a good presenter and well spoken, and I thought she did a good job today at least in that regard. This is probably the seventh or eighth time I’ve heard her speak, and I thought today was the best presentation of herself.
With them moving forward on Direct and broadening (replacing?) management and staffing, it just begs the question on timing and funding.
I hope not.
My concern is that on going dilution with very uncertain time horizons is almost guaranteed to result in a lower share price. Do they have a rabbit they can pull out of their hat? They better have one.
If I were really a short seller, I’d be buying everyone’s dinner tonight. DoorDash would have been on my dime.
Doc, in fairness to them, they did provide a decent overview of the current state of the project, if I can describe it as such.
So at least from that angle, I appreciated the improved transparency, albeit a little too late in my opinion.
Stupid.
When a company doesn’t like what you say about them, sometimes they bring a lawsuit and claim stock manipulation to cover their ass.
Much like today, in my opinion, when stock manipulation was used as an excuse various times. Someone with a transcript should provide the number of times that stock manipulation was mentioned by LP. I’m just curious, I lost count.
By the way, both NWBO and Toucan have been defendants in numerous lawsuits. Just say’n.
That’s how I understood what she said. It came across the same way as FeMike had been describing, that it’s just a routine step in the process.
I think the only way we don’t see this stock sink into the 20 cent range is if they can quickly enter into some form of JV with a decent upfront payment.
The only thing I felt good about were the cannolis.
I said this to someone walking out the door with me who’s been in this stock 12 years: Is I just hope we all live long enough to see the fruits of our investment.
OMG.
Back to the drawing board and park bench for me.
Refreshment table makes the grade.The cannolis are delicious.
That’s a good question.
Now I’m torn because I believe Hoffy has used some of his aliases to side with me. It’s very strange, really. Wouldn’t surprise me in the bit after he read the filings from the self enrichment case that he finally understood what’s going on.
Not to quote Marvin Gaye.
Lots of aliases at work my friend.
My concern has never been the safety and efficacy of DCVax. My concern has been the safety and efficacy of management w/ respect to the value of my shares.
My concerns are validated after reading V. Chancellor Laster’s ruling as attached as an exhibit at the end of the proxy. If you’d like, I’m happy to repost my opinion on the true up vote. Just let me know, I have plenty of time today.
The next hurdle will be whether the size of the option award is within reason. I don’t believe the true up is the only bar they’ll have to clear.
The vote is always skewed in favor of large friendlies and insiders. The smaller retail typically doesn’t bother, so there’s alway a large percentage of eligible votes that are not cast. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if your percentage turns out to be right. For the most part it’s optics, so I doubt it will mean anything as a matter of law,
Make sure to wear a mask for all the smoke.
Be interesting to see how the vote shakes out in terms of percentages. My guess is 65% of eligible shares vote “For.” Which frankly, I don’t see as a win for them.
Kind of on the right track.
I’ve always been a big fan of the cookie table at ASMs, and appreciate at least having that as my tangible ROI. Maybe they come up large this year with an all you can eat shrimp bar? Yummy!!!
The argument that you and Crash seem to be making is if shareholders had not caught management with their hands in the cookie jar before, then why are you mad that we caught them with their hands in cookie jar now?
The cookies are now a lot smaller than before, FYI.
This is a product of their own making.
They are going to lose this case in my opinion, and common shareholders will benefit through less dilution against the value of their shares.
That’s a really good question.
My guess, since this is a derivative lawsuit that having more plaintiffs is unnecessary nor beneficial to bring the case forward or for the court to make determinations to assess damages or remedies as those are made against the corporation for the benefit of ALL shareholders. It’s possible that more shareholder plaintiffs will just further complicate the case, especially if that subjects them to discovery.
It’s a little like a test case that’s used to challenge the constitutionality of a law before SCOTUS whereby the plaintiff is really just a bit player. It doesn’t matter if the case involves $100 or the entire US economy.
Who’s we?
We will vote a third time and the lawsuit will be dismissed.
Every shareholder should understand they’re voting for a true up that was never disclosed during the last vote — I won’t vote in favor of anything when I was not told the truth the first time around. This is an attempt by management to offset the dilution that they themselves caused, which will result is less value for each share you own. In effect, paying management for their own bad performance. We call that in the business, moral hazard.
The cash that the company might receive from the exercise of the options will be significantly less than if there were no options and the company simply sold the same number of shares to institutional investors. That amount would be a multiple of cash to the company relative to the option exercise; presumably this all happens when the stock is listed on a major exchange.
I would also like to be handed a boatload of more shares for the dilution I had no control over. Bottom line, the true up award is in the best interest of management (and perhaps someone else in the trunk of the Uber) at the expense of common shareholders.
I can’t figure out why someone would want less value for their shares so that a couple of already multi-millionaires will become wealthier?
If you don’t want to be fair to other shareholders, at least be fair to me…since I live on a park bench.
Yup.
One correction, it’s 67% to two individuals. Hopes that makes her feel a little better.
Let’s be honest, the Uber ride is mostly for two individuals that represent 70% of the True-up award. Right, the options have to be in the money to be exercised. So it’s all upside for them, with no downside risk. But assuming those options are exercised, common shareholders are seriously diluted, mostly by only two people!
Again, read Vice Chancellor’s Laster’s transcript near the end of in the proxy for how those option awards are viewed by the judge.
Voting for the option awards is actually voting to decrease the value of your own shares by a considerable percentage in the event those options are exercised.
I just spit out my coffee!
Now it makes sense.
In response to Onco -
Right, the entire point of the self entichment lawsuit is to nullify the 2022 vote for the true up and clawback the option award. The fact that the judge’s transcript from the hearing was attached to the proxy was a very interesting decision since the allegations are so shocking from an investors’ perspective.
Why would they air their dirty laundry on the proxy in such a public facing way? The lawyers representing management must have felt this was a necessary step to offer a possible defense for the recasted vote, should the vote be their favor. And the dollars that are (potentially) at stake are so large, they really don’t care as long as they win.
Bigger and Derby can’t possibly be happy with the dilutive effect from the true up, but they also have a different relationship with management that most common shareholders don’t enjoy, so who knows?
The only good thing to take away from this is that management has been so over the top aggressive in pursuing a favorable vote for the True-up award that they have to believe the options will likely be exercised. That might be the only silver lining.
It’s just difficult to comprehend that they’ve gone this far without even one BP partnership for nearly anything. So, it does raise questions.
Dark Forces….oOoOoOhhh
Exactly. IMO if they gave away half the company to the right BP partner, shareholders would be richer and cancer patients would be alive. But that would not work out well for Toucan who is the true beneficiary to NWBO sandbagging.
Keep in mind that the same judge that ruled on their motion to dismiss will likely be the same judge at the trial in May 2025 — and the Delaware Court of Chancery is a non-jury trial court.
The judge had some very strong opinions, and the requirement for informed consent may not be satisfied. Also, the last vote included just 57% of eligible shares (not shareholders), which is likely skewed toward larger shareholders and insiders. That could also be a factor.
As I said Hoffmann, the tipping point has been reached.
How many different aliases of yours do you want me to respond to?
As I said Hoffmann.
Attempting to liable a shareholder to deter opposition to a true up.