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.
Doesn't matter who presented TLD.
Does matter that nwbo publicly acknowledges it as TLD in their PR of 6/5/22.
I think the whole notion of a multi-year "quiet period" is fabricated nonsense. Also don't find any of the embargo justifications even remotely believable.
No ASM scheduled is an interesting question. nwbo is violating laws and its own bylaws, but almost certainly without consequences.
I would not read any particular significance or news into ASM delay, as nwbo recently went 14.5 months between meetings for a meeting with only normal business.
Quote:
TLD has been released. nwbo had a scientist present it, but acknowledges it as TLD in their 6/5/22 PR. https://nwbio.com/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-presentations-on-dcvax-l-personalized-vaccines-manufacturing-and-scale-up-and-dcvax-l-clinical-program/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffie, 5/10 was obviously TLD. Glad to see you finally get it.
Absolute nonsense. Doesn't become true because you repeat it 100x.
In its June 5, 2022 PR nwbo explicitly stated "This Phase III trial reached data lock and top line data was recently presented."
nwbo says the 5/10 presentation was TLD. They're right. You are wrong.
unnamed "reliable sources", twitter, youtube, and a firm trying to sell its services regarding short selling. Those are your sources?
I am entirely unimpressed, although I do give you credit for having the standards to not cite Larry (banned from the industry) Smith.
There are no SEC filings required for short positions of any size.
Given that FINRA reported 33.6m short as of 6/15/22, a 5% short position in nwbo would be mathematically impossible.
Let's say you believe the fantasy about massive naked short positions. Does it really make sense that someone who doesn't report short positions to FINRA would report them to SEC?
Merck Is in Advanced Talks to Buy Seagen for Roughly $40 Billion or More
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/3021c104-b321-35a4-8166-09b1b3d9a4dc/merck-is-in-advanced-talks-to.html
Anyone ever look at Advent's web site?
https://www.adventbio.uk/
I seriously doubt anyone could read the section below and believe it refers solely to nwbo.
CLIENT PARTNERSHIP PROFILE
Advent aim to provide GMP production facilities and systems which will be adaptable to our clients needs. This gives the capacity for clients to scale-up and improve their ATMP manufacturing capabilities according to their unique product and patient requirements.
Our clients consist of International Pharma, Emerging Biotechnology/Gene and cell therapy companies.
"The Company has not to date submitted an application for commercial approval of DCVax-L."
That is certainly an unambiguous statement that nwbo has not filed for approval in UK.
It should also put to rest any notion that Advent is preparing the facility only for dcvax, but it won't because that would interfere with some folks' preferred narrative.
What is your source for the date? Don't see any proxy info on the SEC site.
You're searching for more current information than is available, but you don't need to. The average outstanding warrant price has been pretty consistent.
12/31/20: 0.28
12/31/21: 0.30
3/31/22: 0.28
Whatever you're trying to analyze, if you choose 0.28 to 0.30 as the warrant conversion price, you won't be off by more than a cent or two.
If you go to the latest 10-Q, there is a section on how nwbo estimates warrant liability. It includes weighted average data as of 3/31/22, which should give you a pretty good idea of current exercise prices:
Strike price: $0.28
Contractual term in years: 0.8
The 10-Q also tells you that 15,256,000 warrants were exercised for cash in Q1, with proceeds of $4,185,000, so an average exercise price of $0.274
@Doc, I think you are confusing shelf registration with share authorization.
You are correct that this was the second amendment to the 10-K.
You are also correct that it is minor. Other than a tiny bit of sloppiness, it says nothing about nwbo management.
Given what's on her plate, does it really seem likely that Linda Powers is reviewing an already filed 10-K as her bedtime reading?
Do you really think the SEC checks thousands of filings manually?
Consider the likelihood of an automated process that runs through a basic checklist for each 10-K. Once you have that, an intern could easily check the results.
You think finding a missing audit certification is an indication of M&A activity? Really?
I can't say it's one of the wildest ihub fantasies after some of the pie-in-the-sky market cap projections, but certainly one of the more bizarre.
Your "Holdencel" sounds like "holding cell". Funny, but it would probably make the lawyers nervous. :)
You're being kind as usual.
It's a minor sloppiness on the initial filing. A 10-K should go through multiple reviews (management, accounting, legal) and someone should have caught this.
Probably a summer intern at the SEC was given a basic checklist and a group of companies to review.
New 10-K/A 6/30.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000110465922076361/tm2220145d1_10ka.htm
Nothing significant. Just adds consent of the auditor that was somehow omitted from the original filing.
Before drawing conclusions about nwbo shorting, please read what the SEC says about fails-to-deliver (which is SEC data).
https://www.sec.gov/data/foiadocsfailsdatahtm
Take particular note of the line:
"Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling."
Quote: nwbo says 5/10 was TLD and I believe them.
You finally get it Hoffy. Good to see. Have a nice day.
@flipper, nwbo already acknowledged that 5/10 at NYAS was TLD in their PR Jun 5th
https://nwbio.com/northwest-biotherapeutics-announces-presentations-on-dcvax-l-personalized-vaccines-manufacturing-and-scale-up-and-dcvax-l-clinical-program/
which states unambiguously "This Phase III trial reached data lock and top line data was recently presented"
Whether that meets someone's fabricated definition of "official TLD" is irrelevant semantics. nwbo says it was TLD, and that's what matters.
Kab, last contest I guessed more than a year out. Lots of folks laughed. Turned out that was still too early.
I think you are wildly optimistic thinking that dcvax-L will ever be approved anywhere much less become SOC. They tortured the data for 18 months and still produced numbers that just aren't that good.
September 29, 2023. Last presentation took nwbo 18 months from data lock. Betting they can get the next one done in just 15.
Residual disease data was only reported for 1 of the 5 comparator trials (Weller). nwbo had 63% rated Minimal vs 56% for Weller.
On page 31, the group with "Significant Residual Disease" is where nwbo performed best. However, as noted above, it is only against one other trial, not five.
For IDH-1 and Residual Disease there is only data for one comparator of five. Not exactly a robust comparison, as you certainly know.
For total resection, 63 vs 57 (with 5 missing). What was nwbo's wording, something like "intent for total resection"? This is a case where individual patient data may be critical for cases like partial 99.9% vs partial 80%.
The point is that since nwbo has advantages in KPS, MGMT, and total resection; it is more likely to have patients with all three positive, and those are the best candidates for longer term survival. I'd expect a long tail for nwbo based on patient characteristics alone.
Here's a reverse split vote this week for mircocap biotech PVCT. They are proportionately reducing authorization. Note that the stock split and share authorization reduction were separate shareholder votes.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/315545/000149315222017562/form8-k.htm
If they did such a great job matching, then how did it turn out that the predictive factors are all tilted in nwbo's favor? See page 19 from NYAS.
nwbo had more high KPS scores.
MGMT methylation status is 39% for nwbo, 32% average for comparators.
Complete tumor resection 63% nwbo, 57% comparators.
Those are significant advantages for nwbo, which shows up in the lackluster confidence intervals around hazard ratios on page 31.
You are correct that authorized shares are not typically adjusted in a reverse split.
One exception in small cap biotech was CYTR in 2017. Shareholders declined to approve the company's initial reverse split proposal that did not adjust authorized. After some negotiation, they reverse split 1:6 and divided authorized by 6.
nwbo needs to increase authorized shares. They're only staying legal via the gimmick of insiders suspending exercise of derivatives.
nwbo does not need to reverse split until they are ready to uplist, and until they resolve past NASDAQ issues, they're not ready.
No, you've still got it wrong.
If the 2020 ASM was held within 13 month, it would have been on March 2, 2020.
At that date the German tax issue did not yet exist, at least not in a way that the company believed was material. Otherwise it would have been disclosed in the 3/16/2020 10-K instead of three months later.
You have the timeline wrong.
The 10-K dated 3/16/2020 includes no mention of the German tax issue. It is mentioned in the 10-Q dated 6/24/2020, which was indeed delayed.
If nwbo had held the 2020 ASM within 13 months of of the Feb 2, 2019 meeting, it would have preceded the German tax issue.
The 2020 nwbo ASM had no news, and no signficant votes. It took place 14.5 months after the previous meeting.
There is clear precedent for nwbo being quite late on a nothing-burger ASM.
nwbo is not holding up ASM over publication. That would potentially mean holding up ASM indefinitely, which is ridiculous, and clearly not the case.
I absolutely can imagine a meeting where nwbo tells you nothing because they've done so 2 years in a row.
Poor corporate governance. It's not like nwbo puts on a show for its ASM that requires a lot of preparation.
Reading more into the delay is dubious at best. When they slipped 2.5 months from early 2/2/2019 to 4/18/2020, there was nothing urgent for voting, and no news of any significance. Can't blame Covid because if they'd held the meeting after 12 months (like every other company manages), it would have occured pre-Covid.
I never suggested that the ASM was a special meeting. The point was that for some companies a Special Meeting might be a remedy for management not following their own bylaws, but not with nwbo.
I don't believe the delay is nwbo is waiting on news, just another example of poor governance. As you note, certainly not for the first time.
nwbo is in violation of its own bylaws regarding ASM.
SECTION 2.1 ANNUAL MEETINGS. An annual meeting of the Corporation’s stockholders (the “Stockholders”) shall be held each calendar year for the purposes of (i) electing directors as provided in Article III and (ii) transacting such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting. Each annual meeting shall be held on such date (no later than 13 months after the date of the last annual meeting of Stockholders) and at such time as shall be designated by the Board of Directors and stated in the notice or waivers of notice of such meeting.
Bolding is mine. The rest is direct from nwbo bylaws. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000089102007000175/v31294exv3w1.htm
Note that shareholders are not allowed to call a Special Meeting as with some corporations.
SECTION 2.2 SPECIAL MEETINGS. Special meetings of the Stockholders, for any purpose or purposes, may be called at any time by the Chairman of the Board (if any) or the Chief Executive Officer and shall be called by the Secretary at the written request, or by resolution adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Corporation’s directors, which request or resolution shall fix the date, time and place, and state the purpose or purposes, of the proposed meeting. Except as provided by applicable law, these Bylaws, or the Certificate of Incorporation, Stockholders shall not be entitled to call a special meeting of Stockholders or to require the Board of Directors or any officer to call such a meeting or to propose business at such a meeting. Business transacted at any special meeting of Stockholders shall be limited to the purposes stated in the notice or waivers of notice of such meeting.
Utter nonsense.
More meaningless semantics.
TLD is out. Doesn't matter who presented or where. Company publicly acknowledges it as TLD.
5/10 was TLD. Fact.
There's no confusion or debate. Just a couple of folks who deliberately ignore the facts.
Maybe they want nwbo to have a TLD do-over and hope the market forgets the 5/10 fiasco?
More semantic gymnastics.
nwbo PR'd the 5/10 event in advance. Doesn't matter who presented, it was nwbo's trial data. nwbo acknowledged in the 6/5 PR that it was TLD.
You can wordsmith all you like, but that does not change the facts.