well......that is the big question. They knew back in March that revenue was down. that QE ended February 28. by mid March they had the income since it given on a lag basis. they filed the offerings mid March to regain compliance to meet the "exemption" they were notified just recently that NASDAQ accepted that as meeting compliance exemption. However, now 2 weeks later, they announce they no longer meet compliance requirements as part of what was not told to us , was that they had to maintain that compliance through the filing. because we had a selloff after the filing that is what tripped us up. so.....here we are. the fact we were already given an extension and we blew it, is why I say I feel we have to seriously look at delisting. how many chances are they given? what is reasonable appeal? just going in saying I am sorry does not cut it in court. will it here? I have no clue. my gut tells me unless they go to the hearing in compliance they will not prevail. Its too easy for NASDAQ tojust say you were given a chance you blew it. now your delisted. If you feel you will meet compliance next year with an approval your more than welcome to refile for admittance. That is what I am afraid is going to happen.

Im not sure an offering would even help. They need a defined solution going forward. they already were put on probation and knew they needed to show equity at the time of the filing. they should have had the offering then. messing up the probation NASDAQ gave them was beyond reckless.

Impact, well I agree its shorts who are in control. The problem is what if anything we can do. we are now at a cross roads. The company already was given a conditional extension of delisting. They blew it. They knew they had to show shareholder equity up through the latest filing and they admitted the could not. To appeal, they need to show something substantive. because if its like any other formal court room once you show the judge you violated probation they really do not care.

So, to me the only question is, 1. they may have a chance if they can somehow regain compliance before the hearing. going into that hearing in compliance is about the only path forward that I see. however, the way they worded the PR. that they intend to appeal and give them a path forward does not sound like they expect to be in compliance anytime soon.

That leaves me to point 2. Ok we get delisted. many companies trade OTC and do well. can IPCI? I think the question to that is will our major institutions be able to hold a delisted company? what are their requirements? If they can hold a delisted company, we may be ok. if however they are forced to divest, then we are sunk. you cant dump 13 million shares on the market and not have any buyers. it will drive the price way down.

I really can not believe that if Odidi has something held back such as a deal for Regabatin he better unleash it now. Once we get delisted, I agree with the other sentiments. the company will have lost all credibility on the market.

Fabius, I agree with your assessment. The company admitted they are not compliant and did not meet the conditions for conditional approval, which is why the NASDAQ sent notice for immediate termination.

Now, lets be honest folks, why would the hearing go positive? If they truly had some plan or some news they would have already unleashed it. They were already given a reprieve and failed to meet the conditions. Does anyone really think an appeal for mercy stating they expect to receive an approval next year will suffice?

If they had a plan why not release it to shareholders saying this is how we plan to move forward. Heck they are not even telling us. I think they are going to go to the hearing. show the stock was $2.50 a share prior to adcom and therefore once we get an approval next year we should be back to $2.50 and in compliance they just need that year. That is probably the big plan they speak of! who really thinks that would work?

we may as well start assessing the risks associated with delisting folks.

LOL. all is fine and better than before? I guess he failed to actually read the last QE he just reported then.

I agree. Its sad they can not find one darn positive thing to PR but the negative ones keep flowing freely.

Stockings, normally I would say I agree with the analogy. However, the time frame you laid out, Boyd moved pretty fast. 4 months from buying in to board member to selling off rights.

Boyd Purchased in last October, almost 8 months ago. we are now having a meeting where a new member is proposed and it is not Boyd, nor one of his people from what I can tell. so I am not sure he is as active in IPCI as what he appeared to be for CERC.

I must admit however, the only reason I have not sold off at this point is because of the recent accumulations. While they have not been shareholders long enough to assess Odidi's abilities and get stung yet, they clearly see potential as we all did at one time. They at least have enough clout to effect change.

Actually, who knows what they are doing any more. I agree, they found out the abysmal 1QE results in March as the quarter ended February 28. Hence the cash raise by mid month. However, That doesn't explain then they amount.

They gave away roughly 30% of the company for a mere 5 million dollars. If revenue is not to increase, that will only get us through 2QE. based on the report they had 3.5 million cash left, which means by June or July they are out of money again.

So do they have something in the works or not? who knows any longer. I would have thought based on the Operational update in January when they stated the wanted to start Regabatin trials by year end, that knowing the expense of that, they had a partner lined up. But clearly if they had they should have inked that deal in March rather than give away 30% of the company for 5 million.

What I find astonishing,is even if they have no control over revenue and sales as they claim, they certainly have control over spending. They have made no effort to cut costs during these times. To the contrary the recent proxy vote they want to continue the bonuses as they are. based on approval rather than commercialization. which means as of now an approval only costs us more money and puts us deeper in debt. They still spend the same 3 to 3.5 million a quarter. And they do not seem to have any ideas as to how to turn this around. If they do, they certainly are not sharing that with us.

If the only thing the company now has is hanging its hat on Rexista, we will need to dilute every quarter moving forward and by the time Rexista would be approved, our float will be closer to 100 million shares.

Wim, I noticed the same thing. They did not have time to prepare a 1QE. they just used the last year end and added in 1QE numbers. I found a lot of inconsistencies such as what you pointed out. Its embarrassing.

Fabius, I agree. Thats why there is no discussions. everyone is left speechless. Odidi seems to not be able to deliver. he hasn't landed any deals. Regabatin should have been partnered 2 years ago. Rexosta should have been partner before adcom. we two ANDA's sitting for over a year collecting dust. and now the only drug that was bringing in revenue we find out has sunk. which leaves us with knowing every quarter for the foreseeable future will need to dilute millions shares up to the point Rexista is approved.

Unless he can unlock something, which his record to date speaks for itself. so why talk about it more and get more depressed. Heck he can't even find a way to cut costs. we continue to spend the same 3 to 3.5 million we have yet now with no revenue.

Tilator, what you propose would be non-feasible. first you could only buy stand alone pharmacies. otherwise your dealing with a chain or a franchise at which point they would dictate who you purchase your drugs from.

However assuming you could purchase stand alone pharmacies then you still have the issue of no control over your customers. How many customers does that stand alone pharmacy have and then how many of those customers has a script for your drug? It really makes the idea non-feasible.

can I just say ....WOW. I do not think I even want to turn on the computer on tomorrow. call me when the blood bath is over.

wimike. No you did not miss anything. this all started because of a post I made to Fabius explaining my opinion as to what the filing was by Armistice and how they now lost the right to exercise the warrants because they exceeded the 9% buy of the company. with exceptions of course. I merely pointed out that the filing specifically stated that the warrants were still able to be exercised in the event of spin off. The conversations of others then went to speculations regarding maybe thats why Odidi didn't care about giving away 30% of the company if a spin off or buy out was contemplated and the conversation continued into speculation as to Purdue possibly would be a suitor.

so you did not miss anything you just have to read all the posts , in context and in order LOL

LMAO. enough said
. LMAO

Fabius, as usual, I can not give legal advice nor render any legal opinion. if you would like a personal opinion however, I can offer the following LOL.

You have to look at the entire document not just piece meal to get the intent. This was the initial filing by Armistice. It was triggered because they now own a 19% stake in the company.

they were recognizing that they now exceeded the limitations as set for the warrants they purchased back in October and March. In order to exercise the warrants, they had to agree not to own more than 9.99% of the company and with the last offering they purchased on March 16 they now exceeded that requirement, in essence making the warrants "UN-excercizeable".

I will point out that there are exceptions to the rule, such as if the company agrees to allow them to exercise them or raises the limits. They also mention the warrants are able to participate in any spinoff of the company. (possible hint, hint). It also places a 61 day stay on any increase in beneficial ownership until they made this notice. in other words they will not have 19% ownership for 61 days until after the notice date. which is probably why later down in the document when it specifically asks if they intend to remove any board members or effect changes in Management, they put down "not applicable".

so,its just a routine notice at this point in my mind. The company knew of the 9% threshold back in October. The company willingly sold to them directly in March knowing it would trigger this lock out of the warrants. so seeing how they can get an exclusion from the company, if they wanted to exercise them going forward I would suspect they would not have any issues from the company. so I do not see this as any attempt of a hostile takeover etc. I did find it "interesting" that they specifically stated that warrants would still have the rights to participate for any spin off.

Thanks Stocking! I knew I saw it somewhere, could not recall where but at the time just focused on the stockholder of record dates and did not pick up on the meeting date.

they have some time then. they certainly are not giving people long to return the proxy's and then count them are they?

speaking of which.....has anyone even got proxy statements yet? The last I saw they set the shareholder record date as March 27 but I have not even seen a date for the annual meeting.

no problem. Its just my gut feeling but seeing how it was Purdue who claimed a discrepancy in the depositions then submitted a proposed order to the Judge and right afterwards the Judge canceled the Hearing, my gut tells me Purdue is stalling and the hearing was rescheduled at the bequest of Purdue. Its typical that they would not want the judge to rule on the preliminary requests and lift the FDA stay.

Wimike. I read over the answer and other supporting documents IPCI filed. It appears they have a top notch team on that case. I was following along until they went into discovery and then most of the documents are sealed due to confidentiality issues and intellectual property issues.

Tilator, its a complex issue. Purdue's patents all build on one another. From the original formula up to and including the one with the abuse deterrence.

In layman's terms, Purdue feels since their abuse deterrence technology build on the original patent, then that should give them exclusivity on the original patent as well as the abuse deterrence Oxy patents because they feel the older patents were "rejuvenated" with the addition of abuse deterrence.

The courts have historically thrown out that argument on the grounds of "obviousness". Basically saying hat any competent scientist would be able to figure out the same thing based on the original patent as a starting point. so since the original patent is no longer protected you can not extend the patent years just because you added to it.

Purdue is still appealing those decisions now based on what they call procedural errors and that their partners in development were not part of the original lawsuits. The current lawsuit with IPCI is the first time that the partner Grünenthal is part of the legal process from the start.

In my personal opinion, I think they are trying t use this as a litmus test for the other cases to see if by adding Grünenthal as party changes the outcome.

IPCI's argument of course is, yes they used the original formula for OXY, which is no longer patent protected, however they used their own technology and patents for augmenting it.

Stocking, did you get notice of this? I am still waiting to hear anything. they sure are not allowing a lot of time to reply and send in votes.

Tilator, unfortunately I can not offer my services to them at this point. if you recall I am now lead against them. That is why I said it is kind of ironic that I was turned down beforehand.

doog, we need immogies on this forum. LOL I would be using one for shrugging my shoulders. LOL

I have no clue why they wouldn't accept the offer. They just told me they had everything under control. I can't say much more but, shrugging my shoulders and shaking my head.

wimike, absolutely there are legal remedies they could be pursuing. exactly what, is difficult to say without seeing the actual contract. most contracts have a good faith performance clause. or they even have escape clauses. such as if a certain amount of sales are not reached the other party has an option to discontinue.

I think I read somewhere where MNK had the option of dropping the contract if IPCI does not receive approvals within a certain period. the same type of language is usually there on the opposite side.

Ironically, I offered my services free of charge to help the company prior to adcom and even go to the adcom. I was thanked and they politely declined. I really think they need someone to take a look at the contract and advise them. But I do not think they realize they have a problem. They accept the excuse that MNK was slow to market and the contracts were locked up. They ignore the facts of others who were approved months after IPCI and MNK launch now have a larger share of the market. so clearly contracts were not locked up.

wim, you are correct here. The only reason those names showed up is because they all had to sign off on the SEC filing. they were merely there as signatory to the document. The person or group who purchased the 2nd offering just executed on the warrants. at least some of them at the 60 cent execution price. the second offering had no time restraint.

Wimike, I hear ya loud and clear. You and I are about in the same boat. I was already retired due to a disability and was just trying to get my wife retired early. I knew better than to invest in riskier stocks at this age but felt I was good at it before and I just needed that extra to get my wife retired early.

well, all my other investments came due and I made my profits and this one stayed stagnate. then I made the mistake of dumping the profits from the others into this to double down because I believed the hype.

now, it does not look like early retirement at all for my wife, I am just hoping I didn't blow her being able to retire. so, I hear you.

Now with the recent dilution of almost 30% when you add in the fully diluted shares and warrants I think we will be hard pressed to get back to $3 a share. at that rate we would have a market cap of around 130 million LOL heck we never had a market cap higher than 88 million so, yes, its bleak for those of us who have been holding for a long time.

Doog, did they actually give Impact a reason as to why they did not want his help in creating some sort of ad? I do not think I ever heard the reason.

as for seeing any selling from first set of offerings I doubt it. Boyd purchased them at $1.10 and warrants at $1.25. unless he wants or needs to take a loss, I think he would hold on those first shares.

Honestly, I do not like the recent news regarding Aniston that came out but Boyd and probably Shabby, I like seeing here as holders. especially Boyd ramping up his ownership to 19%. I do not think he bought that much to sell at a loss. nor that much to try and short the stock down. But hey, who knows.

Mopar, do you think it would matter to them? they already feel they have no control over the share price. it would not be surprising if they say they have no control over who buys their offerings LOL. I think the main thing they use as a qualifier is a "cleared check"

Doog, the sad part is, management has been quoted by several people that they feel they have no control over the price action! which speaks volumes as to why we see nothing now. they feel they can do nothing to help the SP. at which point Reverse split will kill us. they can easily get us to $2 by a 4 to 1 RS but then that just gives room for the games to continue to drive it back down to 50 cent.

lets face it the shorts are running out of room here. they can only drag it down so far at these levels. I hope they wise up and realize they can do things to support the share price.

Interesting Letter from Boyd on Spectrum.

what I noticed was, in the letter it stated Armistice owned 6.6% of spectrum at the time. he initially bought 6.9% into IPCI and raised it to now 18.9% I believe.

one would expect him to be as vocal a shareholder , or even more vocal when owning a larger share. Maybe not as much money at stake as he had in Spectrum, but a large shareholder none the less and therefore just as involved rather than sitting on the sideline.

Wim, OMG LMAO LOL. LOL, that gets the star for the day.

Honestly, I do not see a reverse split as even being an issue here. The $1 a share part for compliance can easily be obtained merely by following their guidance they gave in January.

IF they start the Podras Trials.
IF they start the HAP studies

These would immediately give us a slight pop. Then neither of these should take long so;

IF they announce positive Podras human results we would easily get above $1.

barring tests results, they still expected at least 1 if not more ANDA approvals "shortly"

while this would not give us sustained appreciation by itself, it may if its already partnered. or they partner it shortly afterwards.

so, my take is, as long as they follow their guidance obtaining that $1 is not going to be an issue.

Now, how far above the $1 we ever get due to the massive dilution, that has yet to be seen. I agree with those comments, some of us who have been here for a while may be struggling to just break even. to get back to that same $3 a share, we now would have a market cap of nearly 150 million. we have never had a market cap that before. so, something new will have to be in the mix.

a Regabatin deal would be ideal !

Angelo, Posts like this are what I live for ! critical thinking rather than just off the cuff.

OK,I agree, He never struck me as someone who would not do anything without sharpening the pencil. However, I am not so sure the giving away the farm for 5 million, was nothing more than needing money to keep the doors open number 1. number 2 it buys time in order to try and effectuate deals but also 3. He must know current shareholder sentiment. what better way to ensure there is no shakeup at the next annual meeting but to have someones vote in your pocket? I am sure these new Institutional investors do not have the same opinion as some older shareholders.

As for having Multiple suitors for Regabatin and rebuffing one in order to keep the others in Play, I would have agreed with that until the recent filing. the tone clearly went from "we intend to start trails by year end of 2018" to now "we will only commence trials if and when money becomes available"

to me, that just sounds more like they had someone or ones, but now the future is not as clear.

As for China, I really can not get into that for obvious reasons. However, I can comment on your thought. I think you missed one factor in there. In order to do as you state The china firm would need to be FDA approved in order to sell those drugs here. would it make more sense that they would manufacture the drugs for the Chinese market? If so, No FDA approval of the site would be needed and I think its way around the MNK issue as I do not think those are world wide exclusive. Focalin I believe to PAR was only for US distribution and I think MNK was the same way.

So, I do agree we do not know the entire story. But other than the need for the immediate cash and knowing you would have a powerful ally for any upcoming vote, I am still shaking my head at the awful dilution at this level.

even if it had something to do with gaining compliance, why not have done this back in October when the share price was $1.10 and he could have raised the additional 5 million then and not dilute to this extent?

Blue,

Not the only scenario. Its possible some did like but Odidi did not like the deal and therefore he rebuffed it? I read somewhere where he mentioned he would not "give away" his technology. Its very possible he had unrealistic expectations of what it was worth.

I still say that while I agree with that attitude, there comes a point where market dictates what your product is actually worth. He had to have had a potential partner on the hook for Regabatin. why else state they intend to launch trials by year end?

However, if that comment was true and he thought Regabatin was worth more, then he rebuffed it. which, only left him with what took place. this awful dilution. which boggles the mid to rebuff an offer you think may be low ball to safe guard value but give away 33% of the company for 5 million dollars!

honestly, Glucho and Keppra have been sitting for over year collecting dust. why not just out right sell them? I bet he could have without giving away a third of the company. It just does not seem to add up.

Doog, well its safe to say Boyd will be holding his shares that be bought in October. He bought in at $1.10 and warrants are $1.25. we know he won't be selling anytime soon. which is why he probably bought the latest offering to cost avg down his other holdings.

Doog, I am glad you posted that from Bloomberg. I know you got it from Fabius. But looking at the data, does that mean that 83% of the free float is already in hands? If I am reading that screen shot correctly that could indicate that of our 43 million out standing shares, only 17% is still available to purchase as the rest are being held. that would only leave around 7.3 million shares available to purchase?

if so that could create a nice short squeeze if they need to cover.

ditto. Thanks for the update wimike!

Company has now acknowledged we are not in compliance as I feared

Doog, do not forget to add in the un-exercised warrants and options. add those I and we a little over 50 million shares for fully diluted.

in the last week he gave away about 30% of the company for a mere 5 million dollars. If you think we started around 35 million and now have over 50 million fully diluted.

Wim, what I wonder then is what did they spend the other offering on if not to pay for the studies? They had 735k cash on hand at the end of the 3QE. they raised 4 million in the offering in October. That should have given them close to 5 million. add in the 4th quarter revenue,they received 1.2 million in revenue in the 4QE that should have given them 6.2 million going into year end.

In the year end they reported they only had the 500K cash on hand. so they spent 5.5 million in the 4th quarter which is a lot more than normal.

so, they should have had those studies already paid for. My guess is, they receive the same 1.2 million in revenue for 1QE18. maybe up to 1.5 Million because of the final doses of Focalan. They had 500k cash on hand, that is a total of 2 million. then this latest offering where they net only 3 million, that's a total of 5 million to get them through 1QE and half of 2QE or why they expect the cash to last only until June.

My guess is this selling out roughly 25% of the companies equity for a mere 3 million was just to pay normal operating costs for the next few months. As sad as that sounds.