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.
Mentor Capital to Expand Funding Bridge for Valley of Death Cancer Companies in 2011
Last update: 12/21/2010 11:05:00 AM
SAN DIEGO, Dec 21, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Mentor Capital, Inc. (MNTR) announces 2011 plans to extend its funding beyond cancer immunotherapy to other leading cancer solutions. "The Valley of Death" is the financial term used by cancer company CEOs to describe the lack of funding that has been available to develop cancer therapies once they exit the non-profit or government arena. Funding is not again readily available until discoveries are far enough along for them to be acquired by a large pharmaceutical company. Mentor Capital feels its shareholders can have the greatest positive impact on the cancer fight by providing funding to leading-edge cancer solutions at the critical middle stage where financing is now lacking.
Mentor Capital, CEO, and Cancer Immunotherapy Index creator Chet Billingsley explains, "The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Milken Family Foundation, Lance Armstrong Foundation and other non-profits have done an outstanding job unearthing promising cancer solutions. Through their sponsorship we know that genetically tailored medicines and immunotherapies can focus the body's own defenses to attack cancer cells. However, when these laboratory solutions are passed to development companies to take through the FDA registration process, funding dries up. Mentor Capital is stepping in to fill that void. Our current and future shareholders will directly or indirectly supply funding to help prepare the new cancer discoveries for approved commercial use. The natural exit is then for Roche, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis or Genetics to acquire and go on to market these promising anti-cancer products."
Mentor is also looking to expand its cancer funding options. The company is exploring possibilities with separate registered investment advisor companies, through an investor representative, to establish other investment avenues. In addition to this potential vertical expansion, Mentor Capital is looking to extend its involvement in cancer acquisitions and investment to include not only cancer immunotherapy companies, but also other leading-edge cancer companies.
Mentor Capital will naturally continue strong involvement with the Mentor Capital Cancer Immunotherapy Index companies because many of the best anti-cancer leaders are found in that index. The Index includes: Dendreon (DNDN), Celldex Therapeutics (CLDX), Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PVCT), Oncothyreon (ONTY), Antigenics (AGEN), Immunocellular Therapuetics, Ltd. (IMUC), CEL -- SCI Corp. (CVM), Biovest International (BVTI.PK), Northwest Biotherapeutics (NWBO), and Generex Biotechnology (GNBT) as a proxy for its wholly-owned immunotherapeutic subsidiary, Antigen Express. At approximately year-end, a limited number of new public immunotherapy companies are expected to be added to the Index and to the Mentor Capital web site. To facilitate alternative public investment possibilities, private companies will no longer be listed in the Cancer Immunotherapy Index and Quantum Immunologics, Inc., a private company, will be removed. Prior to this announcement, Mentor Capital had a significant disagreement with QI management. To resolve the disagreement, Mentor received back 100% of its investment in QI and entered into a negotiated rescission of any future investment responsibility.
Mentor Capital, Inc. historically invests in all public companies in the Cancer Immunotherapy Index and significantly overweights its positions in those companies it views with the greatest medical and financial promise. The Index company summaries can be tracked through updates of the Cancer Immunotherapy Index presented at . Mentor Capital also holds non-cancer legacy assets that are intended to be monetized and directed toward additional cancer related investment.
Forward Looking Statements, Safe Harbor and Risk Descriptions are Incorporated by Reference from the MNTR Company Web Site above.
SOURCE: Mentor Capital, Inc.
Mentor Capital, Inc. Chester Billingsley, CEO (760) 788-4700
Copyright Business Wire 2010
CNN article on Oncopage though they do not list it or Antigenics, this is the doctor conducting the study.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/10/experimental.vaccine.delays.cancer/index.html
http://www.ucsf.edu/chancellor/priorities/vaccine-aimed-deadly-brain-tumor
FYI - "rights to purchase" comes from the actual warrant certificate (WMI included in their filing). The exercise of the warrants can require payment under certain conditions, govt. fees, taxes, partial shares.
They were dated the 17th but look to have hit on the 18th. I think the online is overwhelmed with all the latest activity because they weren't there earlier today.
On the left side bottom - they are filed under Broadbill. There are multiple filings sorry - didn't post the individual links but this is the main one:
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/0812229/0812229100520000000000140.pdf
WMI's response is now posted. The unsecured creditors have joined with WMI to have Broadbill dismissed.
http://www.kccllc.net/wamu
Silverstein didn't file his Pro Hac Vice motion with the court until 5/18/10.
The amended POR states WMI has a right to cancel under sections 363 and 365 of the bankruptcy code. 363 seems applicable but not 365 - any bankruptcy attorneys out here?
Agreed. I think there are a lot of buy orders sitting out there but because there is no bid/ask; this isn't going to run as quickly. It should be more of a small creep up all day.
JPM didn't PR this so IMHO,is a good thing. They likely do not believe they can void the SEC filing of the warrants. Dimeq/z holders never were part of WAMU, so didn't share in the profit nor the loss, it was a vehicle set up specifically to separate the uncertainty of litigation and the stock trade was just an easier avenue to deal for a warrant agent. JPM may get the 15% but that is not a material event for the company.
Millennium Management, L.L.C. owned 16M at one point. Greene was at 6M and Vanguard at 7.5M, QVT Financial, L.L.C. 4M, The Baupost Group, L.L.C. 4M.
I wish we could see the bid/ask & orders.... the MM certainly tried to scare up some action bringing it down to .14.
An additional 63 million plus full gross-up brings the possible value into the $2.73-2.93 using a legal cost of 25M-50M.
I think this is one of the most under the radar ltw's out there. Especially, now that it is grey market with no ask/bid visible to us.
No PR's yet from JPM or WAMUQ - should be interesting on who announces (or possibly neither will). If I remember correctly only 14M shares traded on the day WAMU announced the lower court award out of a possible 112M shares. Not a lot of activity or following even with a public PR and a reasonable potential of being a 20+ bagger.
The appeals court turned this around fairly quick (for them). Let's hope Judge Block remembers his words about the Government's stall and scorched earth tactics and does the same.
Ok, I just finished the first read too. I agree with the others, the award will not be lower, it can only go up. All four counts of the US Gov.'s appeal were turned down. Anchor had two items being appealed, the first item was if the govt. won on their expectancy appeal then Anchor should be allowed reliance damages. The govt. didn't win so this doesn't apply.
The second item of cross appeal of Anchor is a calculation involving the way the lower court determined the mitigation costs, Anchor is looking for another 63 Million. So the lower court will look at this one item and also tax gross-up.
Page 31 - "It appears that the trial court may have reduced Anchor’s mitigation costs to avoid a “double counting” that did not actually occur." ..."Nevertheless, we are not sufficiently confident that our assessment comports with the trial court’s methodology and intent, or that Anchor’s proposed correction would appropriately and reliably “correct” the error, if any. In fact, Anchor’s calculation mixes a precise figure (derived from the NAMCO annual report) with an admittedly imprecise “estimate” by the trial court. Thus, while it appears possible that a correction is warranted, it also appears possible that no correction is required—either because the trial court’s mitigation estimate was “close enough” or because the trial court’s full 1990-97 offset was made deliberately and appropriately in the first instance. On the information before us, we cannot make that determination."
4.5 Notice of Certain Transactions. In the event that the
Company will publicly announce a plan (a) to effect any reclassification,
redesignation or reorganization of its shares of Common Stock, (b) to effect any
capital reorganization, consolidation or merger or (c) to effect the voluntary
or involuntary dissolution, liquidation or winding-up of the Company, the
Company will within 5 calendar days after such public announcement send to the
Warrant Agent and the Warrant Agent will within 5 Business Days after receipt of
such notice thereof and the form of notice of action, send the Holders a notice
(in such form as will be furnished to the Warrant Agent by the Company) of such
proposed action, such notice to be mailed by the Warrant Agent to the Holders at
their addresses as they appear in the Certificate Register, which notice will specify
the expected date that such issuance or event is to take place and the
expected date of participation therein by the holders of Common Stock and will
briefly indicate the effect of such action on the Common Stock and on the number
and kind of any other shares of stock and on other securities or property, if
any, and the number of shares of Common Stock and other securities or property,
if any, purchasable upon exercise of each Warrant and the Exercise Price after
giving effect to any adjustment which will be required as a result of such
action.
4.2(d) The Company hereby represents and warrants that any
Successor Company will enter into, and the Company will provide, an agreement
with the Warrant Agent confirming the Holders' rights pursuant to this Section
4.2 and providing for adjustments, which will be as nearly equivalent as may be
practicable to the adjustments provided for in this Article IV.
I may be optimistic but we all knew that the stock would convert into shares, not actual dollar payouts. Many of us have been here for years (and hold shares) and know how drawn out litigation can be. We've spoken with the Clerks, we've spoken legal counsel, we've read the correct prospectus and filings. I don't think after all these years we are naive and optimistic.
Both Edward Mintz and the FDIC used the DIME sec filing. WAMU had an amended filing and both the plaintiff and defendant used the incorrect filing. Additionally, just because the FDIC uses something in their motion to dismiss, doesn't mean that is what JPM intends to do.
The site you posted in your message board is looking for donations. All of a sudden because of what appears to be a poorly crafted class action suit, looking for damages when there isn't any [yes, you can argue there may be] would anyone want to run up legal fees fighting.
I have no reason to believe, JPM is going to attempt to break the SEC filing of warrants, the FDIC is not the SEC. The intent of the warrants are clear and this would result in another round of litigation, which everyone here doesn't want to wait for. If WAMUQ is not trading when [if] there is a payout then the warrant agent would need to go back to the SEC filings and come up with an equitable remedy.
If your purpose is getting Dimeq holders on board the legal fight against JPM, then just say so or if you a party to the E. Mintz filings. Yes, I believe there was some questionable deals being done with the bank collapses and takeovers. The positions are clearly different.
I certainly do not rely on the kindness of strangers and I'm not donating nor requesting legal assistance or support of others. The Benjamin Franklin case needed to do this for very different reasons, I don't see that we are in this position at this time. If anyone is scared into selling, I have some buy orders out there.
I'm really not worried about the appeal either.
I see the security filing covering all the questions about who owns the 85%....
Filing and exhibits
"7.9 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person (including, without limitation, the officers and directors of the Warrant Agent and the Company) or circumstance is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions hereof, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it has been held invalid or unenforceable, will remain in full force and effect and will in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby, so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner
materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination, the parties will negotiate in good faith in an effort to agree upon a suitable and equitable substitute provision to effect the original intent of the parties.
7.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended to confer upon any person or entity other than the parties hereto, any benefit right or remedies.
7.11 Successors. All agreements of the Company in this Agreement and the Warrant Certificates will bind its successors. All agreements of the Warrant Agent in this Agreement will bind its successors."
- I haven't seen any entity, including WAMU, WAMUQ, WMI, JPM and certainly not the FDIC, say they are entitled to the 85% portion of the award.
That the appeal court doesn't overturn all or part of Judge Block's 183 page decision / award amount.
The prospectus says otherwise.
"7.11 Successors. All agreements of the Company in this Agreement and the Warrant Certificates will bind its successors. All agreements of the Warrant Agent in this Agreement will bind its successors."
The 85% isn't the worry here......
Because this has already happened before...... the warrant rights do not dissolve because the ownership transfers.
Dime Bancorp issued the warrants. You can see this in the prospectus. Washington Mutual bought Dime Bancorp. The purchase, sale or transfer did not dissolve the rights of the warrants. It did change the conversion formula but WAMU didn't get to say, we keep 100% of the payout since Dime Bancorp no longer exists.
I feel the large interests are not taking action because there is no action to take at this point. How much did we hear about them in the 15 years it took to get to this point? The case was filed in 1995, did we ever get an update? Yes, 1, when the lower court ruled. Why would we hear anything now?
There is a top notch legal firm representing the appeal, the appeal is being directed by JPM and the warrant holders will get 85% less costs. Someone gets 15%, personally, I don't care who. Though I think it would be cleaner and quicker with JPM.
My original fear was no one would administer the legal appeal (the FDIC kept the asset or WAMU didn't have the legal costs, or JPM didn't care and/or chose not to proceed). None of these came to fruition as the oral arguments are done, so it is just waiting time again. Albeit, this one will be quicker.
JPM and WAMU are disputing who owns the asset. I haven't seen anywhere that the FDIC is still holding any assets? It was up in the air for a while but then the claims and counterclaims between WAMU and JPM started, they both claimed the litigation as theirs, neither party mentioned that the FDIC still held any of these cases.
Does anyone have anything which shows the FDIC still has anything to do with the warrants?
The legal case shows contrary, Jones Day changed their Certificate of Interest filed with the Federal Appeals court from representing WAMU to JPM (not the FDIC) back in early 2009. I wouldn't think a panel of three Federal Judges would except it if the FDIC opposed it.
I only skimmed the document but I hope it does get dismissed. The warrants are registered to WAMU(Q), the litigators filed they are representing JP Morgan. While I would prefer JPM to for the warrant conversion, I'm ok with WAMU as everything they do will be approved by the bankruptcy court. The warrant issuing doesn't provide for anyone keeping the 85%.
Now if the FDIC has control (Mintz only filed against the FDIC) then IMHO believe we would still get the money but we may be older and grayer. We know how the govt likes to stall in paying out money.
Also, a class action suit would run up attorney fees when 1) we haven't even had an appeal decision 2) no one said we weren't getting the funds. It seems premature and unnecessary use of funds.
I didn't see how many shares Edward Mintz even owned. I'll have to re-read but most of us know the person who files a class action gets the money and the rest get a token....
I'll forward the document to anyone who wants it so we can get other opinions.
$382,430,910 award. 15% to the house, 50 million in litigation (unknown cost at this time but one of their sample formulas in the prospectus used a 25 million figure so doubled it for appeal - the waiting time shouldn't have cost much) gives ~ $2.17.
Yes, Judge Block ordered gross-up so there should be no tax implication "Further, the parties are ordered to meet to determine the appropriate final calculation of the gross-up amount. The parties shall report back to the court by May 1, 2008, at
which time the final determination of the gross-up will be determined and added to Anchor’s recovery. All other figures awarded in this opinion are final."
The appeals court typically rules quickly, a few months. So the interest (and hopefully price) should continue to grow.
Yes, it could be appealed but I highly doubt the Supreme Court would find any cause to hear this case. Especially, since the Supreme Court already gave the "go ahead for the banks to continue their claims against the government" with Winstar et all. http://supreme.justia.com/us/518/839/
Bluzie - I've read this a few times over the years.... This is the 1st paragraph in Judge Lawrence Block's denial of a defendant's motion. It gave a good understanding of how he felt when he put pen to paper to be memorialized for many lifetimes. It made the waiting a little easier knowing he wasn't going to pushed around by the USA.
November 10, 2004 (1st paragraph case no. 95-39 C)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S [United States of America] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant has endured a host of criticisms during recent years for the manner in which it has defended the Winstar cases in this court. Its tactics have been regarded as a type of “scorched earth policy,” as the government concedes no ground regarding the applicability of established law or the implications of factual distinctions from one case to another. This court has at times regarded defendant’s approach with skepticism or even disdain. Regrettably, that trend continues with defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of liability issues in this case. One judge of this court long ago lamented that “the government persists in ignoring or misrepresenting the law while failing to distinguish the cases factually.” Cal. Fed. Bank v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 753 (1997). As the instant motion makes clear, reform is slow to come by.
The insider "selling" was to pay the tax consequences only.
2. Represents exclusively, shares sold to cover minimum federal, state, and local tax withholding requirements upon the vesting of the restricted shares granted in lieu of a cash bonus for 2008 performance.
Old news but may be related to GSK news on increasing H1N1 adjuvanted vaccine. Since GSK accelerated the agreement last year with AGEN and set up manufacturing facility for QS-21, it seems plausible that QS-21 is the adjunct of choice in their vaccine.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2017113
Are there any filing requirements with the Pink Sheets for the issuers?
Issuers are not required to register securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or be current in their reporting requirements to be quoted on the Pink Sheets. Nor are issuers required to file financial or other company information with the Pink Sheets. SEC Rule 10b-17 requires all issuers of publicly traded securities, including Pink Sheets securities, to notify the NASD at least 10 calendar days prior to the record date of any dividend or other distribution, stock split, reverse split, or rights or subscription offering.
From The Times
June 1, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/health/article6401710.ece
GSK in final trial of vaccine to fight malaria
Tom Bawden
The world's first malaria vaccine could be available as soon as 2011 after GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) began an advanced trial of its new Mosquirix medicine.
Scientists began injecting 1,200 infants and children with the vaccine last Wednesday, as GSK kicked off its Phase-III trial of Mosquirix in Bagamoyo, Tanzania's oldest town, on the East African coast. Eventually, up to 16,000 patients will be immunised in seven African countries, including Mozambique, Kenya and Malawi, in the trial, which represents the last big hurdle before GSK can apply for regulatory approval for the vaccine.
Mosquirix is the first potential malaria vaccine to reach the Phase-III trial stage and does so after 17 years of tests on its safety and effectiveness, which began in the United States. About 80 per cent of vaccines that enter Phase III typically end up on the market.
There are treatments available for malaria once the disease has been contracted, but no vaccines. Vaccines immunise the body to protect itself against the cause — in the case of malaria, a parasite transmitted by mosquitoes. Malaria tablets, which can be taken for a maximum of a few months before they become toxic for the body, are not classed as vaccines.
Mosquirix is designed for people living in areas where malaria is endemic and will not be available to tourists as an alternative to malaria tablets.
GSK's Phase-III trial comes after the New England Journal of Medicine published in December a positive endorsement of data from two earlier, less extensive, tests of Mosquirix. In one of these trials, in Tanzania, the vaccine reduced infection with malaria over a six-month period by up to 65 per cent in babies aged under 12 months, who are the most vulnerable to the disease.
In a separate trial, involving children aged between five and seventeen months in Kenya and Tanzania, a slightly different version of the same vaccine reduced cases of malaria requiring hospital treatment by 53 per cent.
The path to the Phase-III trial has not been smooth. In 1999, GSK was planning to abandon the malaria vaccine when the Belgian unit doing the research applied for a grant from the Gates Foundation. Since then, the foundation has provided $107.6 million (£66.5 million) of development funds, while GSK has invested about $300 million of its own money so far.
Not at .01 but dribs and drabs at .02.
I don't see why a claim is necessary. Only the 15% belongs to whichever company prevails. Jones Day is now taking their direction from JPM so they believe JPM is the rightful party. I can't see Jones Day making that type of change without strong evidence that it is the correct move.
I see it going back up to the 30 cent holding range when JPM changes the ticker to their name, it took a long time with WAMU to get this off the halt list and on the penny board, it might take a while to change and get halted again.
Then it is just the final appeal to work through and payout with a new conversion to stock.
It is a pdf document, I don't know a way to post it here. I will email it if you want to post your address.
The filing is public - it is available through Pacer, for anyone who wants to sign up. No, I am not an attorney.
Jones Day changed their Certificate of Interest filed with the Appeals court from representing WAMU to JPM.
Red brief now due 3/25/09
Pacer:
"2/11/2009 MOTION: Entry 23 :by Cross-Appellant - Unopposed motion for an extension of time, of 30 days, within which to file brief. SERVICE : by Mail on 2/11/2009
ACTION: Entry 24 :Granted. Brief is due on or before 3/25/09. Filed: 2/12/2009"
I don't think one has anything to do with the other. As far as I know the Winstar/American Savings Bank litigation was not linked to any warrant so the payout belonged to WAMU. Anyone?
Of course the case looks like it wasn't finalized until after WAMU failed -see below from Pacer. Did JPM purchase the rights to the payout of the case? If not the assets belong to WAMU / WAMU creditors. Based on your comments, the bankruptcy judge determined either JPM did not by this or that the bankruptcy court would hold onto the money until it was determined who ahd rights.
From Pacer / Court of Appeals - American Savings Bank
9/25/2008 MOTION: Entry 50 :by Appellees - Motion to enforce mandate and request that motion be expedited. SERVICE : by Mail on 9/24/2008. REPLY 1: 10/9/2008 , Entry # 51 ACTION: Entry 52 :IT IS ORDERED: The motion is denied without prejudice to refile, as appropriate, with the trial judge. Filed: 10/21/2008
Appellee's brief.
2/23/2009 Due RED BRIEF
1/9/2009 Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
Last entry is the same - ACTION: Entry 21 :Motion granted. Brief is due 1/9/09. No further extensions should be anticipated. Filed: 12/30/2008
2008-5175 (Case number)
Briefs are not available for download (from Pacer website - or it might take some time - will check back in a few days)
"I would agree and doubt Justice Block's decision will be overturned. Most appeals fail and he had the advantage of being late (very, very, late for those of us who sat waiting) in the game so he was able to review the other appeals first." He wrote a detailed decision and was able to review other appeals first. I think the risk of being overturned is much less in this case then in the first few.
I still think the risk (now) is the conversion if WAMU doesn't exist at all by the time the govt. has to pay up.
The appellant requested a second extension. No decision noted in Pacer as of today.
MOTION: Entry 19 :by Appellant - Second Motion for an enlargement of time. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/3/2008
REPLY 1: 12/9/2008 , Entry # 20
I've read at least 30 of the Winstar cases and the appeals. I would agree and doubt Justice Block's decision will be overturned. Most appeals fail and he had the advantage of being late (very, very, late for those of us who sat waiting) in the game so he was able to review the other appeals first. If you look, there have been no Winstar decisions since this one. This is the longest stretch without any cases, I would have to think that Anchor was/is one of the last.
I think the risk is there is no requirement for Wamu(q) to continue the case. If they run out of money, then there is no way to pay the attorney to continue. The second risk is this getting tied up in litigation for yet another 13+ years to figure out a conversion (not that it is that complex but who would have ever thought it would take this long to get here).
I think the creditor's committee for the bankruptcy court is the avenue to explore if you can be squeaky. Without bankruptcy court approval for funding of the continued litigation, there may be no litigation.
Govt. opening briefs are due 12/10/08. Govt. filed a motion for a 90 day stay, the motion was denied.
PS. The govt. has a special line item in the budget for Winstar defense cases so when the cases go away so does the budget. This gives the bureaucrats and staff attorneys and incentive to keep these cases going on as long as possible.
You would need to sign up for PACER, they charge for the service, even for searches. I just checked, the opening brief was due 11/10/08 but they were given the typical extension.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/ - you can follow the link at the top to PACER.
"11/3/2008 MOTION: Entry 15 :by Appellant - Unopposed 30-day enlargement of time. SERVICE : by Mail on 11/3/2008"