Jeff and Jadite, retrospectively, it appears that the PPS was negatively affected by the downward guidance provided by ANI. Remember ANI had a small product portfolio. The quick rise in PPS in 2014 and early 2015 was partly due to the unexpected revenue from Vancocin and Lithobid. Had the extra API for EEMT not been available to the competitor EEMT sales would have more than offset the generic competition to Vanco and Lithobid, thereby muting the impact of the biotech selloff which started in early 2015.
ANI pipeline has now filled out nicely and is likely to produce quarterly revenue growth for a couple of years. As Investors become aware of this more will want in. For the time being it is mostly institutional investors.
They present at UBS on Monday. Since the deficiencies with the API supplier, cited by the FDA, have been corrected as of early March, those who are not brain dead should see the upward guidance coming June 7 (Target Action Date) or shortly thereafter. Pryzbyl, being cautious would not price the cancer drug into to the last Guidance release, just in case the FDA found something else.
This opens up the possibility of shorts competing with new investors prior the expected upward guidance revision.
Previous presentations had the cancer drug having a material effect on revenue and EBITDA. In one presentation Przybyl stated that the cancer drug and anti infective would add at least $22 Million to EBITDA. This assumed ANI faced generic competition for the cancer drug from the company presently marketing the Branded version. To date there is no evidence to support that they intend to compete with the generic version.
Why did ANI merge with BPAX. I believe it all comes down to Libigel and the undisclosed discoveries. Assuming they knew it would take time to get the patents, ANI could support earlier stage growth and minimize dilution until Libigel is ready to start generating revenue.
As for PPS, YTD ANI seems to be doing well compared to most of the competition.
JMHO
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
