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.
Chump:
It is your money, and you have the right to believe in Pourhassan if you think he is the right person for the job.
I have spoken with Pourhassan, listened to all of the conference calls he led, and most importantly, watched his actions.
Based upon this, I have reached the conclusion that Pourhassan does not have the knowledge, background, or experience to lead this company.
I hope you are right.
However, if you are wrong, as I believe you are, I hope the board terminates Pourhassan before he can do further damage.
In either case, I respect your right to view things differently.
I just hope that you, me, and the other shareholders do not suffer the consequences of Pourhassan's actions.
Best of luck to you in this investment.
LM
Pourhassan must go!
Can anyone honestly say, at this point, that Pourhassan is the right person to lead this company?
There is nothing in Pourhassan's background or experience that would suggest he has the competence to lead a clinical stage biopharma such as Cytodyn, and his mismanagement of the company confirms that he is in fact incompetent.
If Cytodyn wants to succeed, it needs to be led by someone who has the knowledge, background, and experience to lead this company out of the mess Pourhassan has created, which is reflected in the current share price.
Those who continue to be Pourhassan apologists should ask themselves whether they are willing to back their continued support with huge financial losses.
I am very long Cytodyn, and have been for years. However, I do not wish to sit idly by, and let an incompetent CEO continue to run this company into the ground.
If anyone agrees with me, I would urge you to contact the board, and let them know how you feel.
LM
No buyout needed if the data is good.
If the data on PRO-140 is good, CYDY will not need a buyout, as it will be able to raise whatever capital it needs at a much higher share price, and go it alone.
That being said, if the data is good, especially the data for mono, there will likely be a number of suitors lining up to buy the company.
Anyone who doesn't believe in PRO-140 should not be in the stock.
HAART has serious side effects, and requires daily dosing. If PRO-140 works, it will become the SOC for the majority of those with HIV who are CCR5, which represents about 3/4 of the HIV population.
Thus, while I agree with Pearsby and others that Pourhassan is not capable of leading this company, and should be terminated immediately, in the end, the success or failure of Cytodyn rests in the data.
CC will come only when there's positive news.
The company will not schedule a CC until it has something positive to announce.
There would be no point in scheduling a CC before then.
Hopefully, the CC will be led by Tony Carracciolo, and not Nader Pourhassan.
Given Pourhassan's propensity to over promise and under deliver, including two promised "golden quarters," and his combative responses to shareholders who dare to question anything he perceives as being critical, Pourhassan has no credibility, and cannot be allowed to lead another conference call with understandably distraught shareholders.
Cytodyn needs a leader who shareholders believe in, and that is clearly not Nader Pourhassan.
LM
Ben F: It is never too late to sell a stock where you do not believe in the company.
Indeed, it is better to recover something than nothing if you think a company is worthless, which appears to be your opinion of Cytodyn.
I share your concerns about management, specifically Pourhassan.
However, I believe Cytodyn is likely to succeed, in spite of having an inept CEO, as PRO 140 appears to be a valid drug.
You have the right to hold your shares while complaining about the company, but that seems to be a foolhardy strategy.
Hold your shares if you believe in the company, and sell if you do not.
Complaining, while holding, makes no sense.
My opinion, for what it's worth.
LM
Someone ask Shiek to post on this board.
Let's get Shiek's views on CYDY straight from the horse's mouth.
LM
Pourhassan must go.
He lacks the credibility, competence, and charisma needed to lead this company.
Pourhassan has continually misled the shareholders by over promising and under delivering.
While I realize Anthony C. is now on board, the company should not be wasting any of its precious, dwindling resources by continuing to pay Pourhassan to be involved in any aspect of this company.
LM
TB:
Thanks for the kind words.
LM
I am not surprised the author was unable to substantiate the facts in the article given that these facts were made up.
Seeking Alpha did the right thing in removing this article after the "facts" in this article were shown in the comments to be demonstrably false.
LM
What happened to the White Diamond short blog?
I was about to write another comment to the White Diamond short article on Seeking Alpha, and was unable to find it.
Does anyone know what happened to this article?
LM
Following is another comment posted to today's short article on Matinas:
WDR:
If you are offering to retract additional false "facts" in your article, let's start with the two discussed in my last comment:
First, that GJG is intending to unload its stock.
Second, that Rutgers had "failed" trials for the drugs it sold to Matinas.
I welcome any evidence to support either or both of these alleged facts.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but what in the blue blazes does the fact that a passive shareholder, whose husband has had past issues with the SEC, have to do with the merits of a biotech company, whose drugs are now in a number of clinical trials including one being funded by NIH?
If the person in question was involved in management of the company, or was even a director, I would share your concern. However, I am sure that many successful companies, including blue chippers, have shady shareholders. So what?
As with any clinical stage biotech company, the value of this company lies in the results of the clinical trials. On this, I am sure we can agree.
If and when the clinical trials demonstrate that effective but otherwise toxic drugs, such as amikacin and amphotericin B, can be made safe, while maintaining their efficacy, the company will be wildly successful. If the trials fail, the company will have little or no value.
Assuming we agree on this, please enlighten me on any evidence you have that Matinas' encochleation formulation does not make effective but toxic drugs safe and effective.
Incidentally, since you are writing anonymously anyway, would you please be so kind as to enlighten your readers as to whether you covered your short on Matinas and, if so, when.
If you are still short on Matinas, please disclose the extent of your short position.
I have truly enjoyed our discourse, and welcome your disclosure of evidence that supports ANY of the facts in your article, other than that a passive shareholder may have some connection to a person who ran into problems with the SEC.
LM
Attached is another comment to today’s short article on Matinas.
_____________________________________________________________________
WDR:
Thank you for agreeing to delete the erroneous statement in your article regarding GJG's alleged conversion of their preferred stock for common stock. As you now concede, GJG never did this. The retraction of this very significant, but very wrong, "fact" raises serious questions regarding the veracity of your article.
Unfortunately, the alleged conversion of preferred stock by GJG was not the only error in your article. To the contrary, as noted in my earlier comment, there is no evidence to support ANY of the alleged "facts" in your article.
For example, there is no evidence to suggest that GJG is intending to sell some or all of its stock as you suggest. The fact that GJG has held its stock for years, even when the stock was at $4, belies your supposition that a sale is imminent.
Moreover, it would make no sense for GJG to sell its shares at current levels when it did not sell any shares when the price was $4.00. In addition, if GJG were to now dump its shares, and further depress the stock price, it would hurt its investment in this company.
If you speak with GJG, you will likely become convinced it is in this investment for the long haul, that will only terminate when Matinas is bought out by a pharmaceutical company having an interest in its patented encochleation technology.
Nor is there any evidence that supports your erroneous contention that Rutgers ran a failed clinical trial on any of the drugs sold to Matinas.
I challenge you to present any evidence in support of this claim. You will be unable to find such evidence as there were no such trials.
If you have any evidence which supports these, or any of the other "facts" I refuted in my earlier comment, I would ask that you provide such evidence in a responsive comment, or supplemental article.
If you have no evidence to support the alleged facts upon which your article is based, I would respectfully suggest you retract it.
It is one thing to publish an article without any support for the alleged facts upon which the article is based.
It is quite another thing to refuse to retract the article when shown that the facts are wrong.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
LM
Twin Boys:
I did not think the company will or should respond to the SA short article.
Responding just keeps the debate alive.
Best to ignore the article, and let the data speak on the company's behalf.
BTW, I have two sets of twin boys.
LM
Today's drop is due to a short article posted today on Seeking Alpha.
Following is a response I posted to that article:
The two premises of your short article are factually inaccurate, and appear to be intentionally misleading.
First, GJG did not convert its preferred shares to common which you suggest was so that it could dump these and other shares on the open market.
To the contrary, the S-1, to which you link, shows that GJG exercised warrants to purchase more shares. This was done pursuant to Matinas' tender offer for all outstanding warrants in which most shareholders, including officers and directors, used their own funds to exercise warrants to obtain more shares. This tender of shares by almost all of the company's shareholders manifests a strong vote of confidence in the company.
Moreover, you fail to mention that GJG purchased its shares years ago, before Matinas even acquired its encochleation technology, and only had an omega cholesterol product. In the years GJG has owned Matinas, it has sold a mere handful of shares, and has given every indication that this is a very long term investment for them.
Second, Rutgers did not sell its interest in the cochleate technology because the results of its clinical trials were unsuccessful. Rather, as isthisonebetter points out, Rutgers chose not to pursue approval of encochleated drugs because the cost of raw materials, at $60/g, was too expensive. Matinas has now found raw materials needed for encochleation at $1/g which makes manufacture of encochletated drugs commercially feasible.
I am not surprised you offer no support for your contention that the Rutgers clinical trials on any encochletaed drugs were unsuccessful as this is simply not true. In fact, to my knowledge, Rutgers did not run any clinical trials of any encochleated drug.
However, the greatest flaw in your analysis is with the encochletated drugs themselves, as well as the encochleation process.
Amikacin and amphotericin B are two of the most effective drugs for treatment of bacterial and fungal infections respectively, and are few such drugs that have shown little or no drug resistance. The problem with both drugs is that are too toxic to be used except as a last resort.
If encochleation can make amikacin and amphotericin B safe, while retaining their effectiveness, both drugs will be blockbusters. Early in vitro and in vivo clinical studies suggest that this is in fact the case, and that encochleated amikacin and amphotericin B are both safe yet effective.
In fact, the NIH recently asked to extend the ongoing Phase II clinical study of amphotericin B for six months. NIH would not have agreed to this extension unless its results to date showed that the encochleation of this highly toxic drug made it safe to take over a long period of time, while continuing to retain its effectiveness.
Matinas has stated that it intends to ask the FDA to approve a Phase III pivotal study for the prophylactic use of amphotericin B to prevent the onset of fungal infections in highly vulnerable populations. If approved for this purpose, the revenues for this drug would be increased exponentially as it would be used for a much longer time. The company is confident encochleated amphotericin B will be approved for this purpose.
It is important to bear in mind that encochleation is a platform that makes toxic drugs safe, while maintaining their efficacy. If encochleation can make a multitude of drugs safe, without interfering with the drug's effectiveness, other pharmaceutical companies will presumably be lining up to license this technology for their efficacious but toxic drugs.
While focusing on one of the company's major shareholders, who is nothing more than a large long-time passive investor, you ignore the management, directors, and scientific advisory board whose background, experience, and credentials are impeccable, and beyond reproach. It is this team that will lead the company forward, and its success will lie in their capable hands.
I understand that as a short it is in your best interest to denigrate the company. However, doing so with misleading and inaccurate information is not the way to build your case.
The results from the Phase I C-amikacin trial are going to be reported by the end of this month, while the results of two ongoing Phase II C-amphotericin trials will be announced by the end of June. Should these trials confirm that encochleation works, and makes highly toxic drugs safe, while retaining their efficacy, the market is likely to bid up the share price based upon the prospect of this company not only having two blockbuster drugs, but the potential for other drugs to be encochletated as well.
I suspect you will cover your short position in Matinas very soon, if you have not already done so. However, should you continue to hold your short position for a long time, my guess is that you will lose your shorts.
LM
There is nothing for the company to report until the Phase III adjunct results are announced. If the results are good, the share price will rise, with or without BTD. If BTD is thereafter announced, that should cause a further rise in the share price.
The next catalyst will then be Phase III monotherapy.
Gyrations in the share price before these events, while disconcerting, are irrelevant in the long run.
If the data is good, the share price will rise.
If the data is bad, the share price will tank.
Everything other than the data is just noise.
So, to quote Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X, and wait for the data.
LM
Perhaps FDA waiting on Phase III adjunct results before ruling on BTD.
Thanks.
Does Shiekh have a handle?
Just who is Shiekh, and how do we know of his track record?
Who is Shiekh?
Remember folks, it's all about the data; everything else is just noise.Keep that in mind as the stock price continues to plummet.
No one who is now selling can possibly know how the data will shake out. So don't become fearful as a result of others selling.
Have a good weekend.
LM
Matinas keeps on announcing good news. All signs point to favorable Phase I results for nano-encapsulated amikacin being announced within the next few weeks, and favorable Phase IIa results in two studies for nano-encapsulated amphotericin B being announced within the next few months.
If this test data is good, the share price should jump, and the company will come onto the radar of big pharma.
BD:
As with most clinical stage biopharma stocks, it's all about the data.
If we get good data, the sp will go up.
If we get bad data, the sp will crater.
Everything else is just noise.
LM
A Tale of Two Companies: Matinas Biopharma and Cytodyn. Or One Example of Committed Investors Who Hold Both Their Stock and Warrants.
Many on this board have suggested that the Paulson investors sell their stock and hold onto their warrants. As one of the Paulson investors myself, I am personally holding onto my stock and warrants. However, undoubtedly Paulson itself, and many of my fellow investors, have sold many of their shares.
The fact that CYDY investors sell their shares shows that they are not committed to the company but are hoping for a pop so they can unload.
Matinas Biopharma (MTNB)
I can tell you from personal experience this is not always the case. For example, I am an investor via a private placement in Matinas Biopharma (MTNB) which is a clinical stage company with a potentially disruptive encochleation technology that allows for the safe administration of otherwise highly toxic drugs.
In the case of Matinas, not only did the investors not sell their shares, but they recently tendered their warrants for more stock. Thus, MTNB's investors, which include most of the directors, who invested huge amounts of their own money in the company, are not only holding onto their shares, but are buying more.
If you check the MTNB stock price over the past six months, you will see that the investors in this company have been amply rewarded as the SP has increased more than 600% during that time.
In my opinion, the Matinas investors are committed to the company because they believe in and trust the management.
Pourhassan Must Be Replaced
I like Cytodyn's PRO-140, and believe it has great potential. However, I have no confidence in, and do not trust, its CEO, Nader Pourhassan. Perhaps that is why Cytodyn investors, in contrast to almost all of the Matinas investors, sell their stock as soon as they are able to do so.
Perhaps with new management things will change. Until then I can only hope the potential of PRO-140 can overcome the ineptitude of its CEO.
Matinas Has Many Imminent Potentially Game Changing Catalysts.
The Phase I Study of Encochleated Amikacin.
The Phase I study should meet the safety endpoint. The ongoing Phase I study of encochleated amikacin uses healthy subjects, and the only endpoint is safety. In that the Phase I studies of encochleated amphotericin B showed no toxicity, and only minor adverse events at the highest dosages, it would be a huge surprise if encochleated amikacin did not show similar safety in this ongoing Phase I trial.
I suspect that when the amikacin Phase I results are announced sometime this month, the share price will pop.
The Phase II Studies of Encochleated Amphotericin B.
However, the truly game changing clinical studies are the two ongoing trials for encochleated amphotericin B in which the endpoints are safety AND EFFICACY. If these results show that encochleated amphotericin B is as effective as non-encochleated amphotericin B, and has no toxicities, then we will truly have a disruptive technology, and a buy out will definitely be a possibility.
Topline results from the two Phase II studies are expected to be announced in 1H 2017.
The Phase III Pivotal Trial For the Prophylactic Use of Encochleated Amphotericin B.
From there, Matinas intends to ask the FDA for a pivotal Phase III registration trial for the prophylactic use of encochleated amphotericin B. If that trial were to be approved, that means the FDA will have found that this drug, which is so toxic it can only be administered in a hospital as a last resort, and for very short periods of time, is safe enough to be taken orally, at home, for a many months.
This would truly be game changing and disruptive especially if encochleation is shown to make many other highly toxic drugs safe and effective.
Conclusion
With so many catalysts on the near horizon, these are truly exciting times for Matinas. If Matinas' enclochleation technology can make effective but toxic drugs safe to administer, it is difficult to imagine this company not being the object of a big-pharma bidding war. If Matinas chooses to go it alone, the licensing fees from pharmaceutical companies seeking to use its patented encocleation technologies for a number of their effective but toxic drugs, together with Matinas' sale of its own encochleated drugs, should make Matinas a big player in the pharmaceutical industry.
LM
Next catalyst Phase I results for encochleated amakacin.
Per the company, these results will be announced in 1Q 2017, i.e., within the next 30 days.
The next catalyst after that will be the results of two Phase II studies of encochleated amphotericin B that, per the company, will be announced in 1H 2017.
These are very exciting times for the company and its shareholders.
Positive catalysts, including uplisting to NYSE, and the results of three clinical trials, are coming soon.
I think we are still at the early stages of what should be dramatic increases in the price of this stock.
Only $2.00 for NYSE Market (which is the old AMEX).
R-E-L-A-X: Celgene and Gilead once traded for 75 cents.
The market does not always immediately bid up the price of a clinical stage biopharma. It takes time before a drug is proven in clinical trials to be safe and effective.
If the results of the upcoming clinical trials show PRO-140 to be either more effective, or equally effective and less toxic, than the existing SOC, then the share price of CYTN will rise appreciably.
I would venture a guess that many years ago, while CELG and GILD were in clinical trials for their first drugs, shareholders were grousing about the stock price, as some are doing with respect to CYDY today.
If you believe in the science, then stick with your investment in CYDY. If not, then by all means sell.
As Packer QB Aaaron Rodgers once said when the Packers were in the midst of a modest losing streak: R-E-L-A-X.
CEO has announced uplisting "sooner rather than later."
This same sentiment has been stated by the CEO in numerous investor conferences.
I would be surprised if uplisting did not take place within the next few weeks.
PRO-140 Virologic Suppression (VS) Results Are:
9 subjects VS for two years.
1 subject VS for 41 weeks.
5 subjects had virologic rebound (not clear at what point in time).
1 subject withdrew from the study due to relocation.
Welcome any thoughts on how promising these results are.
LM
Let's hope for good follow-through tomorrow.
LM
Pears:
I agree that if PRO-140 is approved, the company will likely be acquired.
However, the BO numbers being bandied about on this board are fanciful and unrealistic.
While as a very large shareholder, I would like to see a buyout at 5-10 times the market value, as some predict, we can realistically expect something more akin to a 50% bump over the current market price.
However, first things first: unless and until CYDY gets some good results in a credible clinical study, or FDA approval of PRO-140, no BP is going to be interested in buying this company.
In my opinion, it would be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders to terminate, or at least phase out, the services of Nader Pourhassan as his so-called "leadership" cannot be counted on to lead this company to FDA approval or a BO.
LM
Chump:
If the market was going to act in response to this small clinical trial, it would presumably already have reacted.
The muted non-response to previous announcements regarding this small clinical trial suggest investors don't care much about it.
The market is waiting for the results from the larger ongoing clinical trials.
These results will make or break CYDY, in my opinion.
I would like to see BTD, and think this will give the stock price a short term lift.
But, ultimately, results of the large ongoing clinical trials, both adjunct, and more importantly, monotherapy, will ultimately determine if PRO-140 does or does not work.
If the results of these large trials are favorable, the stock price should rise dramatically.
If not, CYDY will fail as so many clinical stage biopharma companies do.
As an early investor in CYDY, with a very large position, and five-year warrants, I am hoping for favorable results.
LM
Market unimpressed by results from ten patient trial.
I don't think the market will be impressed with results from a ten patient clinical trial. If the market wasn't impressed with zero viral load after one year, and after 18 months, it will likely be similarly unimpressed with zero viral load for only ten patients after two years.
What is needed to move the needle are results from the larger clinical trials that are now ongoing.
BTD will give the stock price a short term pop, but ultimately the results from large clinical trials are all that matters.
Many catalysts are on the horizon in the coming weeks and months. Topline Phase I results to be announced in 1Q 2017 for amikacin, Topline Phase II results to be announced in 1H 2017 for amphotericin b, and uplisting to NYSE Market is imminent.
Matinas' is also planning to do a clinical trial for the prophylactic use of amphotercin b.
Along the way, I would expect licensing deals whereby pharmaceutical companies pay to use Matinas' patented cochletate technology for effective but toxic drugs that can be safely and effectively administered through use of this platform. This would allow Matinas to grow, and increase value, while getting the money needed for Phase III trials.
Value-wise compare Matinas to Insmed (INSM), which has a $950M market cap while having only one product: a nebulized form of amaikacin that may possibly have significant side effects.
In contrast, Matinas has an oral encochleated form of amikacin that appears to have few, if any, side effects, and is a platform for the safe and effective use of dozens of other drugs (such as but by no means limited to amphotericin b) that are effective but too toxic to be used except as a last resort for very short periods of time.
Matinas is like a lottery ticket where for $4, you get a chance to "win" hundreds.
Based upon my discussions with Dr. Burger, I am confident he would present well on behalf of the company, at CROI, or any other conference.
I am equally confident that Pourhassan would not present well at CROI, or at any other conference.
Pears:
Good observation.
However, ANYONE would be better than Pourhassan, especially Dr. Burger.
I invested in a private placement for CYDY years ago in large part based on a very long and detailed discussion I had with Dr. Burger.
Dr. Burger convinced me (and I still believe today) that PRO-140 would become the SOC for those 70% of HIV cases that are CCR5.
Chump:
I hope you are right.
Either or both would be great choices.
LM
Dr. Burger would be a great choice to present at CROI.
In my opinion, Pourhassan would be the worst possible choice as he does not have the knowledge, background, experience, or Pharm-Cred to make a presentation to an audience as sophisticated as that at CROI.
Has CYDY announced who will, in fact, be presenting?