wim, I totally agree. he may be making those purchases when he claims, but he surely isn't holding. the reason he buys I feel is to cover his short position. if not short he just flips them then. I have a difficult time believing he is just accumulating.

Fabius. I think a talented football player who felt they could win the game by themselves and forget they are part of a team. Egos get in the way. He probably turned down numerous offers but felt they were worth more. then his ego felt he could go it alone. using generics to fund the pipeline and then take the drugs to tentative approval and then unlock the full value. what he didn't understand was the economics behind that decision. such as what a delay in Regabatin would actually cost. or the delay in Rexista.

Lets face it. why was Rexista filing held up? Now that we know Podras is not part of it, and we know they never did the HAP studies for the blue dye nor even the nasal abuse, for what they submitted they could filed that application a year and a half earlier than they did. as soon as they finished the last study which indicated there was no food effect! but why didn't they? because they knew they were working on Podras and felt that carrot would held sell it. which was the wrong move as Podras can be added to any drug already on the market as an NDA-S. and then he didnt want to partner until after he received tentative approval.

hes trying to keep too tight a control on his intellectual property, not wanting to bring in anyone before its his. which si the wrong move for a company which first touted itself as an innovator. The original business model was to design drugs and sell them to large pharmas. Now, it has morphed to manufacturing them himself. Its stupid really.

Dont feel so bad, numerous others right here along with you hoping to break even.

Fabius, do not hold your breath on that one. Regabatin has been shelved since the IND in late 2015. why? they know the additional testing will require a partner they can not go it alone. if they were holding off until Rexista came through to do the testing themselves, they are idiots as that puts Regabatin back 7 years.

Lyrica comes off patent in 2018. they just released approval of their their own ER lyrica. Now they will have to face patent litigation again, because Pfizer will claim they stole the technology. and they will have to face generic competition from the generics after 2018.

In my opinion they missed the boat on the most valuable candidate. Its still has value but not like it did. They should have partnered two years and would have been ready to file next year and ready to hit shelves in 2019.

Rexista is the same way. Had he any intention of partnering it, he would have now before diluting. he still has it in his head he wants a tentative approval before he partners it. It will not get him any additional money. it still will only be worth X amount. but we end up putting more into it up front and worse of all no one else to go to help when dealing with the FDA.

sad really. I just hope people remember this come next year around election time.

Wim, I agree. It is probably why the company updated their forecast to being CFP by mid 2018 now. that would go hand in hand with your projections.

once everything is up and rolling I expect 4 to 5 million from Focalin a year and around 6 to 8 million from Seroquel. Honestly, I think everyone especially the annalist, had unrealistic expectations. the majority of these drugs should all be about the same. 3 to 5 million a year for some of the lower value ones and 5 to 8 million a year for the better ones. we really do need 1 more generic to get approved to ease the blood shed. OR do something with the 2 we have now and nothing was ever done with them!

The company really needs to improve communications. they stated in the 3QE they had enough cash to get through till December with revenue sharing and the possible need to sell ATM. The very next day they did an offering! so, does that mean even with the offering they still only have enough cash to get through until December? Who knows.

Then no relevant news on Rexista. did they start the required studies yet? the last we heard they will take 9 months to complete. If they haven't started yet, that keeps pushing longer to the end of 2018, which means they need to rely on the generics even more.

The fact they did an equity offering instead of a partnership is unnerving. They should have partnered Regabatin 2 years ago after the IND. They need a partner with deep pockets to complete the trails. and They clearly showed us they d not want to partner Rexista until the get a approval.

we clearly need a change a management.

swe. Yes. I took the big hit. waited for the price to bottom out at got back in. I was then able to take the cash proceeds from my taxable account and transfer to my Roth accounts and when I bought back in now hold more shares in my ROTH than I use too and lowered the amount of shares in my taxable account. I had to try and find someway to gain in this crap fest and try and save a way for my wife's retirement. so now with the additional shares in the ROTH I do not need as high a share price. which at the moment looks like its still a million miles away.

Tilator, the class will be all shareholders holding shares within the class period with the exception of foreign shares bought outside the NASDAQ and no shares held by the officers or directors or insiders of the company. everyone else is fair game. so if you take away all this shares from the float your talking about the remaining 10 to 12 millions shares potentially. That is what the class would entail. If you bought your shares recently or after the class date you would not qualify. so again, its only between a certain period of shareholders. I can not go into exact date or specifics because one, right now I do not know which case will be certified. hopefully mine but no assurances.

Tilator, again, all I can say is, whether we agreed or disagreed that a case should be filed, is irrelevant. One had been filed the day after the adcomm disaster. at which point, who do you want driving the bus? someone sympathetic to IPCI or someone who doesn't give a crap? as to how you can be assured that I would look out for shareholders interest, as I said. I own over 100k shares. Do you think I would do something counter productive to my own interests?

I can not go into further legal discussions as to the merits or strategy that will be employed. You can either believe me or not. at this point we do not even know who will be certified as lead. But, feel free to go back through the years and read my posts and make your own determination as to my intentions with the company. I can tell you that I have been a shareholder since 2012. I know the company inside and out and with the shares I own, I have a considerable vested interest. I have a substantial legal background myself and lets just say I used my political connections to locate one of the top firms in the country at very advantageous terms.

So, personally, I have not seen your ID show up on this board until recently. I could question your intentions. But I don't. why? because it is irrelevant. just like in this case. keep in mind a case was already filed. that bus had already left the station. at least with me as a driver, you know what you are getting. Hopefully that allays some of your concerns.

Doog, lets just say depending on which case is chosen that will all be taken care of. LOL. I know people have their own views regarding the cases. as I stated, it is irrelevant. once someone filed it was a done a deal. so who would you rather have driving the bus? someone who really doesn't care nor understand the company or someone who does?

to hopefully alleviate wimike, how it can be beneficial to shareholders. especially during time of negotiations. Now think about this. if you were sitting across the table from them what would you ask for???? There is more to life than just money. the quicker things settle the less expensive they are. just think about that once. what would you ask for? LOL

And doog, that disclaimer you pointed too in a previous post, lets just say is not enforceable. So yes, there was a reason I did not want people to know I was going for lead and there is a reason I want it and yes, whether you agree or not is fine but I am on the side of the shareholder in this one. Trust me, I own over 100k shares. I have a lot at stake myself.

Fabius, the wording on the offering that you are referring to is standard. they always leave an open period for the shares to sell. in most circumstances they sell to a underwriter who then places them for sell on the market. f in this case it was a private purchaser who bought all of them. so its standard to give a time period when the offer to complete the transaction is closed.

my initial comments regarding the strange language was in regards to the warrants. I do not recall ever seeing language as normal where they state the warrants are not registered and can not be sold in the US without another registration. they should have been covered under the shelf offering. so in my opinion there is something strange about this. possibly a good thing that they are indeed restricted. I do not know at this point.

as for what I can not discuss, all I can say is like I stated to Doog. Whether we agreed with the merits of the case or not. whether we felt one should be filed or not was irrelevant. The fact was, right after adcomm one was filed. At which point, my logic was then why not go for control and then at least someone who cares about the company is in control. Then use that to effect changes. we shall see. The financial got that right. there are only three and they will get rolled into one in the end. Its the one who is chosen as lead then gets to dictate the outcome. so my thought was wouldn't it be nice for it to be someone who actually cares about the company? I really cant say much more. but I will say, for those who want to refer to lawyers as ambulance chasers etc, I can post the statement out of my contract where I take nothing extra. so, we will leave it at that.people will either believe and understand my intentions or they wont. I cant change what people think.

Angelo, I agree. IT is not a bad thing to add to another product as an NDA-S. My point was it also appears that they intend to abandon it with adding it to Rexista. Now is this being done because the money wasn't there from prospective partner? I do not know. Is it because Rexista is so far off it now would put adding it to that so far back? I do not know. all I do know is as you read the PR's, and the disclaimers Podras is no longer being mentioned along with Rexista. And that my friend is a problem. The Company even put out PR's stating Rexista enhanced with Podras got fast track status and do you recall what happened? Everyone is assuming this partnership for Rexista is going to be a block buster because it will contain the option for Podras to be added. Now when it doesn't what will happen? All I know is, when the time is right I will be getting to the bottom of this question. but for now, I do not believe the company intends to add Podras with Rexista any longer.

Honestly, who knows anything any longer with the way the company PR's. they put out a financial stating they have cash to last until,December and intend to bridge any shortfalls with the ATM and the very next day the dilute with an offering. Its been a bad historical practice on their part. That PR they put out a few years back stating they got fast track status confused everyone. I know a lot of people here felt Rexista was going to be fast tracked and were shocked when it went standard.

Amigo, I am not so sure about that being standard bioler plate language. here is what the last one stated;

clearly a difference with these being private issued and not being available in the US . something I feel is different about these.

FM....you do not want to here my thoughts on that one. No one else has picked up on it and I am sure others will disagree but the most recent talk about it, seems to be they now dropped it from Rexista and are only going to add to an some other candidate.

if you read the latest Financial you will see what I mean.

if you read what I quoted and emphasize what I underlined. see what conclusion you draw.

Anyone else note the following statement?

from the way it sounds the warrants may not be as toxic as thought. It does not appear they can readily sold. at least not yet, I wonder if they sold them to someone like MNK ?

Wim, do not sell yourself short here. Yu were trying for a few months to get everyone to readjust their thinking as to realistic expectations in regards to revenue. The analysts were expecting to earn a penny! you were there trying to point out the error and the danger of believing it. they did finally readjust to minus 5 near the end and they were still off! so do not under sell your own insights.!

good job!

Doog...unfortunately at this juncture I can not render any advice. personal or otherwise to your inquiry. if you read through the financials you will understand. lets just say that I am behind one of them.

the logic being, whether we agreed with it or not, one was already filed. so at that point, why not try and get control and thereby hopefully effectuate change. That is all I can say for now.

However, I will point out. The CEO and COO positions answer to the Board of Directors. It is their responsibility to oversee and evaluate the performance of those positions. some times they may need to be reminded who has that responsibility if you know what I mean and to be held accountable.

I think over the past few months there were plenty of other options, good options that were floated, that could have been done. I think you know the ones I am referring too. All I can say is the direct link to contact the board is located on the companies website. they may be interested to hear your thoughts.

As for me, I will be letting the appropriate people know of what transpired and go from there. I really can not say much more on the matter at this point.

And then the man wonders why he was sued for false and misleading PR's.

Matrix...well clearly all of us have the profit sharing wrong on the deals. we have the numbers sold and we ended up lower revenue than in 2QE with just Focalin alone? Yet we sold 1.4 million in Seroquel. this makes no sense to me honestly.

read my prior post. just manipulation. we missed by 3 cents and revenue was a miss by over a million, no forward guidance and cash n hand down to 750k and we go up? no reason for it based on past practices. I still say tomorrow we end up down

talk about manipulation. we lose 800k in revenue and after hours it explodes? unreal

looks like a bad day coming tomorrow.

Doog, I tend to agree. with his work on Podras to combat suicide and accidental overdose, I can not see Odidi wanting to commit suicide with an additional stock offering at this level.

The comments here first assume he needs to raise money. The HAP studies should not cost that much and he could easily do what he always does which is pushes back some other project such as proving Podras and stream the funds to getting the tests done. the current revenue stream should be sufficient to accommodate that. Second, If the current revenue stream is not sufficient, he does have other options. He is still sitting on Keppra and Glucho, which he could give away for 3 million lock stock and barrel and raise enough to pay for the tests. he could do as Angelo laid out and give PAR Focalin or even sign the deal for Rexista and or Regabatin earlier than expected.

Knowing that de-listing is at issue I really can not see Odidi selling any shares at these levels. if he does, then everyone needs to contact the Board and ask for his removal.

Amigo , I think there still is ambiguity as it related to what Angelo and I was discussing.

the information we have as example is for the week ending Sept. 1 reported as 347.41. so we know that the beginning of week was still the end of the 3QE which is why Angelo pro rated the numbers. However, using the qoute you provided. when does the persuasive evidence exist? Not until it is reported which would be after the close of the quarter. I could still see in this example the week ly number of September 1 being calculated for 4QE. the "persuasive" evidence of the sales does not exits until after after the fact and the quarter closed. Hence like I gave the analogy of Taxes. regardless that the check is for hours worked in the end of December, its not claimed until the following year. why? because that is when the documentation of the hours worked is solidified by the paycheck.

Now I will further amend this comment with, we are all going based off what is public knowledge. what is actually reported to IPCI and therefore record able as revenue we do not know. they may get daily updates for all we know.

Angelo, Thank you for that explanation. As you stated once the 3QE numbers come in, hopefully we can extrapolate the way they are reported. your way would add additional income to 3QE

Angelo, OK I see how you derived at your numbers. Now the second part of my problem then is the accounting. Most accounting that I am accustomed too is , the money is recorded for when it is received. so while the 347.41 was mostly earned in August, it was "received" in September. we had the same issue with Focalin. that the earnings we lower than expected because the money was received 30 days later after the quarter. Taxes and payroll is handled the same way. if you get paid by weekly and your check doesnt come until January 3. even those those hours were worked in December, they will not show up on your annual w2 for the previous year they actually start the new year. Again that rule is its claimed in the year its received not earned. hence using the same calculated formula, is how I came up with 2080.21 for September. so, am I wrong?

Angelo, I never was good with excel spread sheets. I really should take a class. but tell me what I am missing here. when I add up Septembers sales. ( 347.41 + 415.11 + 400.63 + 453.48 + 463.58)I get a total of 2,080.21 ? so I have no clue how your coming up with some of these totals. I also got different total for 3QE. I came up with 1,442.46. you have 1,150.00 so tell me what I am doing wrong. Thanks

Doog....LOL...shhh dont say that too loud. this stock maybe should halt trading for that day. LOL It can't afford any more bad luck.

Fabius, Interesting to note that the scripts fell slightly week over week, however the sales went up slightly.

still if my calculations are correct this gives us a very steller month of 2080.21. while there are 5 weeks in the month instead of just 4, this month's sales alone are more than the entire 3QE. very nice to see. and yet we are still just at 35 mill market cap. talk about over sold.

Doog. I did nt put much stock in that comment from the FDA. My take is that was generated based on on the poor preparation from IPCI which also lead to confusion of the statistics. if you read the briefing documents Rexista was not called Rexista but mostly referred too as IPCI Oxy. so when you were looking at the charts people couldn't easily tell if they were talking about Oxy or IPCI Oxy. because they kept calling it Oxy instead of Rexista.

just my take on that comment from the FDA

Fabius....I agree. we both stated previously that sometimes litigation is pursued to enhance a settlement. in other words giving an extra leg up in negotiations for securing partnership.

This is an interesting development by CIGNA. one that I find fascinating and intriguing. There are plenty of other drugs, which are addictive and the insurance company continues to cover. such as adderall, which is amphetamine and which can used to create Meth Amphetamine. something much more addictive. so is there going to be a cause of action that Purdue can pursue against CIGNA for dropping a FDA drug arbitrarily rather than any other? My guess is with a 2 billion dollar market cap, they will spend a few hundred thousand to fight this decision.

but in the short term it should help our competitors establish their market share! IPCI again lost out here and should have partnered this a while back and already been approved. clearly, now that we know PODRAS was not included, the only holdup on the application was them dragging their feet. With what they submitted they could have done that a year earlier.

for all concerned. take note of what I posted. There is an earlier important date that I disclosed. so look for the date of the Markman hearing and then here is the answer. and again, this not to be construed as legal advice;

Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment

so there is good indication the Judge renders the decision on the preliminary motions to dismiss

Angelo, LOL Hopefully IPCI can live with X% as well. We all know, they did not infringe and used their own technology. However, sometimes it pays off to settle. I have had clients who would pay tens of thousands in legal fees and hold things up for months just to prove they are right, when they could have settled months earlier and for a fraction of the amount. so in the end did they really win? I am hoping Odidi has a more humble opinion going forward. on this as well as other tings, which I can not go into.

Angelo, gotcha. It was a notation as laid out. It was an agreed revised schedule with new agreed dates. The Docket then was updated to read as follows. It was nothing more than an agreed schedule for the trial case. which as I stated has now taken a two-way path this path and the mediation Judge.

Angelo....LOL I can not give you an opinion that can be construed as legal advice LOL However, I could provide a "personal" opinion. The courts usually set these mediation Judges when they get indication from the involved parties that they are open to settlement. It does not mean one will be obtained or reached, just that are are discussing it. If they can reach an agreement, then they go back to the presiding judge and they both agree to drop the case in lieu of the settlement. if one can not be reached its never par of the record so as not to prejudice the case.
I would guess they are discussing something to the effect of Purdue gets X% of certain amount of years profits in lieu of dropping the case. They could also be talking about partnering terms. Its all on the table.

Angelo....I am not aware of any change of motion after the adcomm. the docket appears as such;

That pretty much takes you August 1. so I am not sure what you are referring too?

Doog, the case has taken two pathways. the case has been remanded to Judge Fallon for mediation. from that point forward the docket is now redacted per standing orders from the District Court.
however, at the same time the case is allowed to proceed with Judge Andrews for trial. currently the last thing on the docket was for service for discovery. That is why the court date of Oct 20, 2018 for trial was set so far off. it allows the parties to do both simultaneously. prepare for trial but also work on a settlement. anything regarding any potential settlement is then redacted from the journals. In the event they stop negotiation because a settlement can not be reached, then the trail just continues as set forth.

Angelo, They may actually be barred. the current Purdue Litigation has been tuned over to arbitration simultaneously while moving slowly ahead on the trial side. depending on what is being "discussed" it could be considered "negotiations" if you know what I mean.

Fabius...I agree, the one thing that would really help is forward guidance on the the HAP studies and if they say, they no longer need to worry about further cash raising. that would be huge.

Amigo...I agree, the tone set by the PR will be very important. I have always said, one can make numbers say anything they want. if you concentrate on missing estimates thats the tone that is set. if you play up the ever increasing and amount of revenue increase it can be rewarding.

As for appointing Patient as COO. I am not even sure he would be the one. He surely has the accounting down but I would prefer a more seasoned Pharma person who can help with the pipeline and negotiations and then work together with the CFO on coming up wit good deals.

But hey, plenty of time for that if things work out the way I am hoping.

I noticed CNBC has now revised 3QE to be -.05 a share. It is about time that the analyst started to revise the numbers. I am not sure if its too late. Hopefully, we do not see a huge slide when they announce earnings. as now hopefully no one expects them to earn that penny. Honestly, I expect to see a -.03 to -.05. I expect we see a nice improvement in revenue, 1.8 to 2.2 mill. the expense side is up in the air however, not knowing if their expenses had increased, hence the larger spread of -.03 to -.05.

In my opinion as long as they give good forward guidance such as stating they will be CFP in 4QE and no need to raise additional capital, that they can pay for the additional studies through income, then I think the miss this quarter will be tolerated well.

we shall soon find out. probably next week is my guess.

Angelo, ....That is what I hope to see with the next QE. a nice breakdown. the new CFO's background is strong in accounting. I would hope that is how he approaches it and makes it own. Having detailed and broke down information would be great to go hand in hand then with Fred's sales and scripts information.

That is why I was just shaking my head in disbelief at the recent banter concerning the upcoming quarter. either side could be correct at this point because neither side has enough information to be accurate. I for one, point out that while sales are not stellar for 3QE, we also get paid on for the "plus" side of manufacturing. so just because they sold 443 scripts how many were produced? maybe enough for a 2000 ? so when do they recoup the "plus" on that which is manufactured? in the quarter it was manufactured or not till its sold?

any varying point such as above changes the outcome. so, while it appears we wont come close to the revenue analyst expected for this quarter, we don't know. its no different than if they do meet revenue, but then they blow away expenses with something we didn't have access too and they still post a loss.

about the only thing we do know is we will find out probably in the next 2 week LOL. and finally, Love the spread sheet! I especially like the addition of the month totals. Top notch work Angelo and many thanks.