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.
Other than this letter, are you aware of anything else that might explain recent improvement in share price?
Absolutely. And the NDAs can limit the persons who are authorized to access the information disclosed. It is the only way that the acquiring company can do its required due diligence.
Obviously, there are risks that a buyer's representatives could violate the NDA and front run the stock, but the dangers don't seem to me to be any greater than already exist with the seller's own officers, directors and employees.
I agree. The NDA will protect against use of the information for anything other than the transaction being discussed. The buyer will want whatever information the seller has before committing billions of $$$ to an acquisition. The negotiations can at least be frank and informed ones, and the playing field can be close to level. Buyers will ask sensible questions, and will understand if answers must be qualified or are not available.
In my experience many sellers would prefer to make raw information available. Otherwise, a buyer will insist on receiving representations and warranties that the seller will not want to make, and that take lawyers interminable days/weeks to draft. The seller's attitude often is: "Now you know what we know, draw your own conclusions."
Obviously, if there is something the seller cannot afford to have the buyer know, it must be identified and carved out of the NDA. There is trade secret information that falls into that category, but that kind of highly sensitive information is usually not disclosed to the public at all. Otherwise, we would all know the formula for Coca Cola.
But if the information consists of test results, however tentative or unrefined, and those results are positive, the seller may be leaving money on the table by preventing access to it. The first question any buyer will ask is: "What are they not telling us?" And if there is critical data that is not being made available, the assumption is that it is unfavorable.
The amount and kinds of information that must be publicly disclosed pursuant to Securities laws falls far short of what a buyer will want to know before going forward in an acquisition of this size.
All just IMHO.
Exactly. And no doubt have.
Zeppo, I am very interested in all the talk about multiple suitors, not only on this board but in published comments as well. If I had to guess -- and it is just a guess -- I would think that the Company would like to make a decision by November 3rd, and is urging those with interest to get serious, consistent with that timetable. Frankly, it is a scenario that makes sense to me and explains why they are not in a position to say anything. The worst thing they can do is make an inadequate, incomplete, confusing or misleading disclosure -- better to say nothing at all. And multiple suitors makes a simple disclosure difficult.
If it were just BMY, it seems to me that the Company could have dealt with the rumor without saying much of anything. It is a judgment call whether you open yourself to potential liability by remaining silent. You don't need to comment on the negotiations. Just the rumor. In my view, if the rumor is false, and you let people go on making investment decisions based upon it, you have effectively represented by your silence that the rumor is true and that is dangerous. But, if the Company has several suitors, is it possible to say anything accurate about the Bloomberg rumor without leaving something highly significant unsaid?
I continue to feel relatively certain that, if something is signed, the parties to any contract will not waste time making it public. The number of those in the know will have increased exponentially when something definitive is in place, as will the danger of someone trading on inside information.
Above all, I have no idea what the price will be if a deal is struck, and am not qualified to comment. But this is just a message board, after all, so qualifications don't matter. I think that the universe of investors is comfortable with $30 today, which suggests that something in the $40-45 range may be quite feasible. Frankly, if Q3 numbers are good, I suspect the stock could have found its way to $30 or so without any rumor. I remain very optimistic.
I practiced law for 46 years, the last 8 as General Counsel for a publicly traded start up company. I am not a securities lawyer, but have a feel for what is involved.
I think that meaningful discussions are in progress, and find it interesting that those knowledgeable on this board speculate that there may be multiple suitors. That would explain the company's silence.
Once a deal is struck, disclosure is imperative. Similarly, if the Bloomberg rumor is false and unfounded, I believe that disclosure would be advisable, if not imperative.
The failure to disclose known material information is as problematical legally as the disclosure of incorrect information, although more difficult to prove.
I could be wrong, but the only thing that would cause me to say nothing for 5 days after the Bloomberg rumor is that the story is a complicated one that can not be summarized adequately in a couple of sentences. I don't think the company has an obligation to disclose negotiations. But I do think the company should consider confirming or denying a rumor that has produced such gains on such high volume. With multiple suitors that becomes dicey to say the least.
FWIW, I think it is highly unlikely that AUPH and a large pharma have struck a deal, but have agreed to delay announcement for some reason. I think that would be a mistake. It is very hard to keep a lid on these things, and a delayed announcement invites problems with the SEC.
All just IMHO -- I don't have any idea what is going on. Just trying to make sense of it.
I doubt that the companies have agreed or will agree not to disclose material information to the investing public when there is something definitive to report. I am guessing that the attorneys are dotting and crossing. These things take time.
I am expecting something after the close today. But then again, I expected something before the open this morning.
Agree 1000%. I am surprised there is no statement of any kind, but given the time that has elapsed, I think we can infer that the discussions are very real and regarded by the Company as worth pursuing.
As this is written, the AH share price is about $30.00. I suppose that can be seen as the market's current view of a "not less than" number, albeit one that is a guesstimate. But I don't know if AUPH should hold out for more, because I don't know whether the feeler is at $30 or $75.
I will be very surprised if the Company does not issue a statement this weekend. They must have been preparing for this, and hopefully they have a strategy. I should think that they would want to get in front of the rumor mill.
I have not seen any numbers in connection with this news. Have I missed something?
From what I have seen there were 2 plans, and one was a divorce plan as you say. It is a lot of money, but my guess is it means nothing.
It would be interesting to see what the plans say, but I believe that public disclosure of the terms of Rule 10b5-1 trading plans is still not required, and as far as I know AUPH has not chosen to do so voluntarily.
Weren't these sales pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 trading plans?
I could be entirely wrong, but that's what this is starting to feel like to me.
A "binding term sheet to enter into a license agreement." From a legal standpoint, it is complete gibberish. Translation: "If we enter into a License Agreement, it will contain the following basic terms." Further translation: "If we don't enter into a License Agreement, the term sheet and this announcement are meaningless." Pure hype -- the kind of thing that breeds skepticism. It is neither good for the company nor bad for it. It is a mirage.
I have no doubt that the parties can amend this "binding term sheet" whenever they want. Are we ready for a "First Amended Binding Term Sheet"?
I would like very much to believe that this company is real, but this kind of thing does not help.
Do you suppose the start of the short squeeze is some of what we are seeing today?
Is it possible to use 2 trades, and double down on 2 stocks, so that you have only 2 stocks in the contest?
If I freeze a stock, can I unfreeze it later? or does it stay frozen?
Is there news?
Okay, thanks. I should have done that math. It serves as a reminder of how undervalued CNAT is, right?
I must be missing something obvious, but why have successful trial results of Viking Therapeutics resulted in this boost to the CNAT share price.
SSKILLZ1:
Did you receive my recent email with a freeze of SQBG?
Thanks.
Steve
Thanks.
Thanks.
If this is "building excitement," it is about all the excitement I can stand. Staged investor conferences with nothing (new) to say have the look of a hustle about them, and make people nervous. After all, if the results are good, there will be enough genuine excitement, and results are likely within the next 3 months.
I don't get this strategy. It creates the impression that the Company is trying to prop up the stock price. Those inclined to be suspicious have to wonder why.
Ironically, it looks like it is having the opposite effect.
I get that.
But I gather from the discussion on this Board that the top line results are "highly anticipated" because of earlier tests and that no one can tell anything about the trial to be reported. This is the part I find hard to accept. It seems an odd time for a road show. Frankly, I am cynical enough to believe that those in charge of the trial have a sense of how it has gone, but then again, I know next to nothing about the protocols and mechanics of double blind studies.
There is a sense in which this trifecta of dog and pony shows -- building excitement, when presumably you have nothing new to say -- has an air of manipulation about it.
Maybe I do not truly appreciate the likelihood that the results are good or the significance of Novartis support. I ask the question because I am very, very long this stock, and felt a bit blind-sided by the public offering 10 months ago.
What is the point of having a succession of investor conferences if results are a complete unknown and there is nothing new of significance to report?
From 3/1 PR:
“We intend to use the upcoming conferences to provide context for our four planned data readouts, the first being the announcement of top-line results from our POLT-HCV-SVR trial in the second quarter,” said Dr. Mento. “This randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2b trial is evaluating two years of treatment with emricasan, our first-in-class pan-caspase inhibitor, in post-orthotopic liver transplant (POLT) recipients with liver fibrosis or cirrhosis post-transplant as a result of recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who have successfully achieved a sustained viral response (SVR) following HCV antiviral therapy.”
What exactly does this mean: "provide context" for data readouts?
I read somewhere that the trial was fully enrolled by early February 2016, and that it is likely that the trial was completed a month ago. If so, is it reasonable to think that Roth and Oppenheimer have a pretty good idea what that data is going to look like?
Any help would be appreciated.
CNAT:
Sorry. Read the PR too fast. The conference reference is to upcoming investor conferences, not the conference call on Wednesday. But I think the point is essentially the same. The results are basically known, and look good.
CNAT -- further details.
PR announces intention to use conference call on Wednesday to announce important phase 2 results:
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76861671
I find it hard to believe that Roth and Oppenheimer did not have this information when recently initiating coverage.
CNAT -- details:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138994339&txt2find=cnat
A conference call is scheduled for Wednesday to discuss quarterly numbers and the status of the trial. It looks like the trial was completed a month or so ago, and it is hard to imagine that the Company does not know how it went. Frankly, I tend to think that Roth and Oppenheimer have been privy to "unofficial" information as well.
I am very long the stock, so perhaps this is just wishful thinking. But it is not so long ago that the stock was trading at $9, and, if anything, the story has gotten better.
It will be interesting to see what happens on Monday.
Does seem to be an orchestrated build up to the release of the data
Ah . . . now I understand. Thanks!
Interesting pre-market action this morning.
I have had about all the fun I can stand today.
Theo:
I don't know anything about the American Biz Journal, but perhaps it was reporting on this news release from Target Pharmasolutions:
https://targetpharmasolutions.com/news/target-pharmasolutions-advance-nash-research-through-new-collaboration
In other words, you are not aware of any. Seems to me that the stock has been severely undervalued for quite a while. But why up 13% or so today?
Did I miss some good news?
OT: My guess is that it was caused by a rumor that Gary Cohn will resign. The White House pushed back denying the rumor, and Cohn has not walked yet. It is perhaps relevant that he has been mentioned by the White House as a possible successor to Yellen.