IMO this message board is still too concerned with every stock tick up or down. The technicals are still bad. Today was a perfect example of negative alpha. So, let's move on.
Attention, IMO, is better focused on dilution/ BOD and business mgmt that needs strengthening re financing and deal making.
In answer to your question:
"Compassionate" usage during Phase III for Cotara would be an "SPA". If PPHM was awarded an SPA the deal for Cotara IMO would be larger than otherwise. However, after parsing all the announcements and language, it sounds like an SPA is 50/50 at best and PPHM wants a Euro partner while hoping to retain US rights. Under this scenario (which personally I hope will change and morph into US partnering as well since PPHM has never demonstrated any marketing expertise) I could envision the geo partner paying for an extensive 2 year phase III (relieving PPHM of this burden) and giving PPHM some front money, milestone payments and a fair back end. I do not anticipate enough front money to alleviate "going concern letter" or the ATM strategy.
Under this scenario there should be some benefit to PPHM from the viewpoint of overall credibility. If U.S. Cotara rights were also licensed, then this situation would be improved IMO (though not yet in the opinion of PPHM.)
The Bavi viral testing is of more interest to me. Firstly, this announcement re completion of enrollment was on schedule. Secondly, the market for Interferon and viral writ large is so big that a licensing partner for Europe, Asia, US or combo of all three could actually move the needle on GC letter and ATM as well as vastly improve overall corporate credibility. The timetable is obviously 1st qtr for results of the enrolled, "randomized", Phase II. I have near 100% confidence that the safety profile will far exceed Interferon but, I am not convinced yet that the efficacy data will be enough for licensing. We may need to run additional randomized testing. Since these viral tests are much faster than Cancer testing, I would watch this area closely.
On the other hand, SK is flat out telling you he is open to licensing this viral area and is viewing it as a "specialty " that would not interfere with Cancer platform negotiations. "Earlier stage licensing" would be possible in this area since the milestone step up payments would be somewhat obvious.
Still looking forward to "randomized" results in NSCLC.
Still do not hear further clinical plans or partnering plans for "imaging". Still do not hear further clinical plans for Metastatic Breast Cancer. Of course, such forward looking clinicals require money and put more pressure on PPHM to develop a financial Plan B. (For the life of me I can not understand why, if PPHM BOD and Mgmt are incapable of working this financial problem out why they don"t bring in some smart people who do know how to work it out the same way they bring in good regulatory people. It is in there self interest to do so and there are many ways to approach the problem without a change of control.)
Example: This evening Kramer interviewed Junius at IMGN re TMD-1 which is their drug for Metastatic Breast Cancer. Their Phase II results so far do not sound better than the results PPHM posted nor does their drug sound as broad in application. However, PPHM could never get this kind of publicity because it has no balance sheet, no credible BOD and no partner. In the case of IMGN their partner is the very same Roche/Genentech from whence all of our fine people come. (I am sure this last fact has not escaped Dr. Garnick and is part of his calculus.)
IMO the only real benefit of a lower stock price is that it puts more and more pressure on PPHM to cut deals.
Regards,
RRdog
