Cleith, I like your style, intelligence and arguments. Go ahead, but watch out not to give away too many details of your plan, because GTC Management has its peons here on this Board.

First of all, I sincerely regret to read that so many long term shareholders have been losing their faith and fortune in this company. The same happened to me, though I had to bail out in an earlier stage. I am not owning any shares anymore.

The other day there was some discussion on failures by the CFO, a.o. that each placement has brought GTCB's PPS down and his failure to recoup the loss on lost inventory for a few million dollars, not to mention the lack of substantial upfront payments in the partnership deals.

What has been briefly mentioned here (or at least on the Yahoo MB) in the past, but as far as I know never been discussed, is that in 2006 the SEC settled with a company called Deephaven Capital Management for an accusation that during the period 2001-2004 the company was involved in short selling securities of 19 companies in advance of public announcements of PIPE offerings.

Among those 19 companies was GTC Biotherapeutics, with its July 2003 PIPE offering. Again on that occasion GTC shareholders lost a lot of money, because you can imagine that the PIPE took place at a much lower PPS than otherwise would have been the case.

I am not saying that the CFO has been responsible for this particular case of fraud around GTC, because I do not know who breached trust and I guess that he would have left the company if he would have been involved, but it is just another case of "bad luck" adding up to what I consider to be desastrous financial management by the CFO of GTCB. IMO he should have left the company long time ago for his lack of competence.

FYI here are the links to the SEC Complaint and the settlement.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2006/comp19683.pdf

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/5514496?f=related

"I thought it was a non-answer answer".

Well, probably they have not dedicated much time to targeting this market apart from the crossing with Japanese at conferences. But the answer certainly did not sound as something which you can spin into a positive sign.

Brings me to another institutional problem. There is so much on the plate in operational and financial terms. Where do they focus?

Is having their own processing/purification plant not killing them financially ? (I know the advantages for delivering the raw materials for trials)

"Dew's Japan probing is another sign of this. I expect to hear something in 2008 for an additional AD deal or AAT/CD137.
It's quite possible that they will never have to raise cash "again; in fact, I'm "betting" on it."

I have been an optimist for many years, in fact I was sure of my future as a GTCB-shareholder, but since last year I have stopped betting. These kind of expectations for deals have been going on for a long time now.

The Japan answer of Cox to me didn't sound as a lack of short term interest, but as a genuine answer on the slow process of negotiations when it concerns a Japanese partner and the lack of capacity at GTCB to follow up on this at 200%.

"You state management is incompetent but you do not give any specifics...eg. what did they they do?? Ans you don't know. Dew thinks he does. He thinks they should have secured financing before waiting so long.... I do not agree, but at least I appreciate a specification."

I have been away from this message board for quite some time, so I may have lost part of discussions which have taken place.

In brief, what I have heard from management since 2003 is continuous promises of nearly finished negotiations with partners in the US. My conclusion is that these potential partners are playing a game with GTCB. Obviously, I do not know what is going on behind the negotiation table, but after several clumsy PIPES (with SEC proven hedgefund fraud in 2003) and never finished negotiations with partners, I get a feeling this is never going to work.

So what I would have expected is that management would have completed the negotiations in Europe, that they could finalize (LEO and LFB), with terms that would have given them financial breathing space, i.e. much better upfront payments and early royalties.

However, it seems that they were so happy to finalize an agreement, that they instantaneously forgot about the future.

Result: they are bleeding to death (or better we shareholders are bleeding to death)

"WHY WOULD ANYONE IN THE WORLD WANT TO GIVE UP HIS SHARES IN THIS COMPANY FOR 1.20 $ WHEN SHORTLY GTC WILL INK A PARTNERSHIP PROVIDING FINANCING,, WHICH IS ALL THE MARKET CARES ABOUT AND AT THAT POINT THE VALUE OF THE SHARE WILL WILL BE ABOVE 2$ AND IN ALL LIKELYHOOD CONTINUE TO CLIMB ]"

Cox told us in the CC that the upfront payment will be in the single digits. So how is this going to resolve the financial problems GTCB has for 2008-2009?

What Jack Green should do is find a real strategic partner that can lead GTCB financially through the next 2-3 years and meanwhile bring down costs to the absolute minimum. I haven't see an effort to substantially bring down costs at all. I haven't seen a 3 year financial strategy at all. GTCB just lives from quarter to quarter and plans accordingly.

"Stop whining and looking for someone to blame...check the mirror out."

I have been for 5 years invested in this company and have followed all Conference Calls, so I know exactly what I am talking about. What in fact I am doing is seperating sector volatility and company management incompetence.

You can put your head in the sand and remain blind forever, but you as a shareholder are entrusting your money to the management of the company to invest that properly.

This management has not been up to that task over the last five years. Nothing to do with whining. Someone should say something and something should change.

Maybe not your ballgame, but this has little to do with whining.

Still looking forward.

"is equally amazing how brutal the markets are when a company takes off its hat and asks for more money when there is very little in the bank."

I see it this way. About 30% of the population in the US has to live from providing (non productive) financial services of some kind to the very small productive sector. All they are interested in is how to gain their commission/margin as fast as possible. They are not interested in the question in what company they invest in or what interest the owner of the money they are investing, has. If necessary they will create ficticious new financial markets (what they did with the OTC derivatives), to get their commission.

In short, this is the ultimate inefficiency of the financial markets, which is presently definately bringing down the US, just like the Roman Empire was brought down by total inefficiency and decadency (I am sure IR Goudy does not agree).

Unfortunately, GTCB may become a victim of this situation, in spite of all they can contribute to society. But, who cares?

That doesn't leave us much time, I guess. So Roy, would you be interested to be nominated as a Board member?

Yes or no is sufficient as an answer, no explanation asked, as far as I am concerned. In any case, I would be extremely happy to have you in that Board, even though I am just a tiny, little shareholder since yesterday.

True, but also Dew would have to accept an eventual candidature for such a post. And I am not sure whether he would like to be in the BOD of a company.

"I nominate Dew to sit on the BOD. Somebody has to look out for the shareholder's interests here."

I support, but that is not to us to decide.

I would suggest GTCB talks to the different partners (Merrimack, LFB, LEO) and asks them to buy some shares in the open market. It would probably be unprecidented, but would keep the supply of raw material alive.

"The personal attacks on Dr. Cox and the conspiracy theories are just ridiculous.

Sometimes a banana is just a banana. He's doing the best he can.

I liked the fact that he departed from the planned remarks and said, regarding yesterday's action, "I'm personally frustrated and even angry."

Frankly speaking, I think he has all the right to be angry and in particular on himself, his CFO and his BOD. I am one of the long-term investors who owned the company's shares for 5 years to see the success of the R&D results being translated into an ever declining share price. DR. Cox from now on will blame the extremely difficult financial markets for the difficulties he is facing today to finance the company's future. However, it is his own lack of experience and vision as a CEO and the choice of the people (read CFO) around him that has led to the present situation.

When you are the CEO of a publicly traded company your responsability goes further than the next year of R&D. You are liable to secure at least the medium-term future of the company and the investments made by the shareholders. So, feeling frustrated for him, who still receives his more than average annual salary, is a lot easier than feeling angry by me, who lost 50% of my fortune, my loss being around $80.000.

I take the responsability myself for my losses, but feel free to name Cox and Green as two pretty incompentent and naive managers, who only now seem to be realizing that the entire company is at stake.

It may sound ridiculous, but I could not resist to buy 8000 shares at $0.57 yesterday. As I said several times before, there is no problem with the technology, but there is a problem with the management. They are easy victims for today's financial sharks. The financial markets in the US are full of scrupeless mafia/criminals and they (this management) re easy prey. As simple as that.

BOD: wake up please and get involved, unless you have other interests as well.

"My advice would be to buy at this time"

Believe me, JL, I would if I could.

I imagined you were a believer of the technology, in spite of your name. It is clear that the going is tough for GTCB, but for me it is unfortunate that we don't have the tough people inside this company to keep this company going.

After listening to years of Conference Calls I never had the impression that Jack Green is more than a bureaucrat. He must be a nice person to be still there, in spite of the things he has let pass. I personally prefer nice persons to difficult ones, but when it comes to killing a long term earth shaking (and improving) adventure I think anyone has the right to point to Peter's principle and say: enough is enough with this CFO.

"If you are unhappy with them maybe you should sell now and cut your loses"

I am a bit of an outsider now, but I still feel I should react on your post, JL. If you are an ex-surgeon using the sacred name JesseLivermore, it must me that you have the guts of the real trader, which JL was.

However, talking here are long-time investors who feel betrayed for the umpteeth time. As an investor (or trader) where is your interest in this company? Are you satisfied with this Management given their performance over the last 2-3 years?

Keitern, I am aware this is happening across the small Biotechs' sector and MicroCaps in general.

However, the LFB deal had to be the turning point. GTCB had a great opportunity there. Either you sell your technology at the right price to the right people or you sell your technology at the wrong price to the wrong people. It now turns out to be the last and that is not the first time with this CFO.

The only good thing that happened to GTCB was LEO.

Anyone questioning the CFO and the BOD?

I am not a shareholder anymore, since I had to sell my substantial holding (bought in 2003-2004) in this stock last summer, after it had burned over 50% of my investment money. I thought that at the time, $1.00 would turn out to be the bottom, but I had no choice, but to sell at that moment anyway.

Seeing what is happening now, makes me really sad. To me we have here a text book case of how not to manage a Biotech Company. The CFO (plus BOD) have sacrificed shareholders' value ever since the 2003 PIPE/hedgefund scam. I fully believe in the technology, but the way this company has done its financing is really the worst I have ever seen in my life. Where the LFB deal should have been a turning point, it seems that that same deal gave the final knock on the head to this company. It went under $1.23 and never returned above.

My conclusion is, that with John Green as CFO this company will be a victim of financial sharks forever. Similarly, the Board should be shaken up, because I don't think the objectives of the Board are in line with those of the shareholders, otherwise they would not have let this happen. I wouldn't write a similar thing, if I weren't sincere in my frustation of how a promising company is getting strangled.

Since I am not a shareholder anymore, I have no voting power, but if ever I get a chance I will buy shares of this company based on the merits of the technology. My question to you (and particularly Dew), how far can you go to let these kind of amateurs run a company? Or am I completely wrong with my perception of what is happening with this company?

Re: Henri Termeer

Well, it is not as much the fact that the share price declines 10 cents. It is more so, that it never recovered from the LFB hand-out and the previous PIPES, in spite of Atryn approval.

I have been a (heavily loss making) shareholder of GTCB since 2002 and find the record of the CFO (including the recent inventory write off) quite appalling.

I would have much more confidence in GTCB without him. Let's hope the cash reserves are safe vis-a-vis the credit derivatives fallout.

"mblimon... where you say "Jack Green's role...", do you mean Henri Termeer?"

Hi Dodah, no I mean Jack Green, the CFO, who in my eyes has been responsable for today's extremely low share price with some very strange and clumsy placements. The many links between Henri Termeer and GTCB's management are well known.

"Don't be surprised to see Henri Termeer try to
buy GTCB for $1.50 or less.<

History does repeat itself."


What Jack Green's role has been in the 2003 PIPE and the placement of shares with LFB at $1.23 has already a big question mark for me and such a deal would make that role extremely suspect.

Speculation now, but with Genzyme anything is possible, as you say.

This is excellent news. It took them at least 4 years of negotiations. Now they can apply for the production permit.


I hope they will come very soon with their 43-101 resource calculation, because that was forseen for these weeks and will be extremely positive.

Thanks for your observations and question marks, Dew.

Considering the financial commitments assumed by GTCB in the agreements with LFB, I am wondering how their financial strategy looks like over the years to come. They seem confident to play the equal partner role vis-a-vis LFB, but IMO can only do that if they have access to the deep pockets of a big pharmaceutical company, in other words they must be sure to find a big partner or to be taken over.

In any case, the broader the (transgenic) pipeline, the more serious they will be taken by the pharmaceutical community.

"In other words, the CD20 product will entail a different and more expensive kind of selling proposition than going head-to-head against either plasma-derived drugs or recombinant drugs such as NovoSeven that will no longer be actively detailed by the time GTC is in the market."

We may assume that DNA/BIIB's product will be in the market at least 4 years before LFB/GTCB's product comes to market, so the time for DNA?BIIB's product to become generic is not that long. On top of that, a substantially lower price is the best and cheapest promotion you can have, I would say.

Does it really matter, when another company has a big head start? Being in Phase III already Genentech/BIIB may expand the market substantially before the (better) transgenic product comes to market.

So it will only mean a larger market to be attacked, isn't it?

As far as I understand it LFB must have been considering other recombinant technologies in the past, but is now decided to go transgenic. Not only is it more economic, the better absorpsion due to the enhanced ADCC characteristics makes it even more effective.

"LFB has initially demonstrated production of this CD20 antibody with enhanced ADCC in cell culture."

Another big step for the transgenic technology.

Swazie, you are trying to create a huge affair out of nothing. As I wrote you, GTCB has been the victim of the incompetence of the EMEA and not the inverse.

You have made your point now a dozen of times. I think you should calm down with your postings, because for someone who does not own GTCB anymore, it comes over as deliberate bashing. In that you are in company with some others who also seem eager to make the same point twenty times a day, which is, to say the least, annoying and suspect.

"It would be of the utmost importance if management would clarify this rumour that has been confirmed by some in EMEA, some around GTCB, some in the field , some of people working at Pharming."


First of all, if GTCB has indeed done so, they were right to do so, because it is clear that the guiding document provided by the EMEA in 2000-2001 was apparently not endorsed by the EMEA committee dealing with GTCB's application for approval at a later stage. So the blame is on the EMEA.

You wrote me that this has been told by someone working at Pharming. Could you tell me who are the ones at the EMEA, around GTCB and in the field who have confirmed this to you?

"If GTC can accomplish something even half as impressive as what ALNY just did, shareholders will do very well indeed."

If the chance for a similar deal would exist, the market would anticipate and we would be seeing a much higher share price. At least that would be the rationale in a normal market. In my opinion GTCB's share price performance is very abnormal.

True. Small is not always beautiful.

I guess that negotiations will start in the biggest markets, i.e. Germany, Great-Britain, France, Spain and Italy. That gives already more than 50% of the EU. Subsequently or parallel Scandinavia, the Benelux, Austria and Poland and finally the smaller newcomers. That would probably leave a very minor share of the European market for 2008.

"the TNF-a mAbs (Remicade, Enbrel, Humira) to treat RA."

Interesting you use RA as an example, while GTCB has its own stake in Merrimack's MM-093 for RA. Would they start different programs based on their production platform aiming at/competing for the same market?

I guess this concerns a situation of luxury, but it may play in the future.

I forgot to mention that Pharming uses transgenic cows as a platform to produce recombinant human Fibrinogen. It can produce large quantities (1-3 grams per liter of milk), which will bring down the price of fibrinogen dramatically.

Quiz: Why hasn’t ZGEN (or anyone else) combined recombinant thrombin with fibrinogen in order to make a fibrin tissue sealant?

Right now the only Fibrinogen available is derived from human plasma. Expression of functional fibrinogen in bacterial or yeast expression systems has not been feasible because of the complexity of this multi-chain protein. Expression is mammalian cell culture cells has been demonstrated, but is unsuitable and too expensive to produce the large amounts of fibrinogen needed.

As a consequence Fibrinogen is available in very limited quantities and extremely expensive. Far too expensive to use it in fibrin tissue sealant on a wider scale.

This may all change, once Pharming can bring its recombinant human Fibrinogen to market. As far as I know rhFibrinogen is officially still in pre-clinical development. However, Pharming has been testing its product in tissue sealants with the US Army.

100 share blocks have been the rule for at least five years in GTCB-trading, but I doubt whether that can account for the low share price.

It agree that Genzyme is the only shareowner capable of this kind of selling pressure. The other option is naked short selling, since official short selling is relatively meager.

What can we do as retail investors against a too low take-over bid? I am not sure how many shares we can mobilize amongst us. But I am afraid we do not reach more than 5-10 million shares.

"What concerns me about the trading pattern which has remained frighteningly consistant over the past three weeks or so is that some person(s) has been persistently covering (selling into) the market when the PPS reaches 1.20."

I may be wrong, but I have the feeling this kind of pattern has been going on for a much longer time, roughly between 0.89 and 2.20.

The question is (as you rightly point out) how powerful this intervening party is? Any serious fund buying through the market would probably make such "share price obstruction" impossible, but we haven't seen that kind of fund buying yet. My question is why we don't see substantial buying at this advanced stage of product and product pipeline development?

True, with Scottish PPL, I already forgot about it. That was a bad start due to a badly chosen product.

The development is clear. Bayer has sold its blood plasma division a few years ago and focuses on recombinant raw material. Interesting detail is that Pharming is working with the US Army on a recombinant fibrin tissue sealant. Such sealants need Human Fibrin and Thrombin. Existing sealants are far too expensive for widespread use due to the costs of the plasma derived components. However, once much cheaper, recombinant components are available, this market may grow very fast. Zymogenetics can soon deliver rhThrombin. Then it will be a question of Pharming getting its rhFibrinogen through the development process. So who knows Bayer may be among the first major pharmaceutical companies getting involved in transgenically derived products.

Apart from the phrase at the end where psoriasis is still mentioned as being in clinical development (see ThomasS), there is also another phrase where psoriasis is still mentioned.

"We continue to view MM-093 as a novel and highly differentiated therapeutic that could have a significant impact in the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, among others."

True, it is remarkable, that psoriasis is missing where you indicated. But it is not enough to write it off IMO.