Locked file in PPHM Class Action.
The last document in this Class Action case is on PACER but is not accessible till December 2013. While PACER lists the existence of an amendment by plaintiff on the dateline of 16 Sept 2013, that amendment is STILL not available while normally PACER shows it one or two days after filing.
Whatever was discussed and resulted in the locked document will also contain the reason why the amendment cannot be made public. I think PPHM may have opposed publication, the Judge agreed and the amendment will not or at least not immediately be disclosed. If the item of information that is the cause of PPHM's request for non-disclosure will (must) be addressed in PPHM's reply then we will ALSO no see PPHM's reply on PACER.
Since it is plaintiffs amendment it is save to assume plaintiff wouldn't write anything in his own amendment that plaintiff didn't want to be disclosed. Hence PPHM must have asked the Judge and that resulted in the currently last and locked document.
I have a theory of what happened. In order to clear my mind of a science problem I am currently helping to solve, yesterday evening before falling asleep I did the mental exercise of what I would do if I wanted to make my case as the plaintif.
I came to the conclusion that the question revolves around: DID PPHM KNOW ON OR BEFORE 20 Sept 2012 (that is before the Sept 7th events) that there was a 100% CONFIRMED problem with the clinical trial results (The 3rd party CRO's error in switching doses).
If I was the plaintiff, and if the US legal procedures allows it, I would make the following reasoning and amend accordingly:
PPHM was negotiating with partners at the time. These negotiations where related to the 2nd ln NSCLC Bavi clinical trial and 15 meetings, management doing their day jobs at night, have been confirmed officially by PPHM in PR's, CC, presentations, etc. So no need to prove anything, PPHM themselves made those claims.
We also know that a partnership was close, that two BoD positions where eminent, and that the dose switching case has put the conclusion of all this on the slope! Credit Swiss and Vienna where canceled and we know AF knew about one of these cancellation WAY UPFRONT!!! That doesn't mean PPHM did know 100% surely confirmed that there was a problem with the clinical trial, they may just have anticipated while waiting for confirmation. In the end CS will have appreciated that such cancellation wasn't done last minute, certainly because a certain audience may have wanted to participate because of PPHM's presence given the Sept 7th 2012 events and the pps going from below 1$ in the beginning of the year to 5.40$ in SEPT.
So if as the plaintiff I would want to prove that PPHM knew 100% up-front, then I would ask the court to hear the BP with which the negotiation was going on. The BP(s?) MUST have known, and probably under the negotiation terms would have been entitled to know, EVERY evolution related to the clinical data that was the subject of the negotiation! Chances are that this potential BP partner will be able to confirm when THEY knew about the discrepancies and when THEY got confirmation from PPHM (our possibly even confirmed themselves to PPHM) that it was 100% sure.
The date of Sept 20, 2012 would then become the spinning wheel of the SEC infraction. Friday 21th Sept 2012 was option Friday (exercising date). Pushing the PR about the discrepancies to Sept 24th, 2012 would be a clear SEC infraction if PPHM knew 100% sure say on the 17th of Sept. (4 Business day rule). Because a company like PPHM surrounded by legal offices would in such important case certainly not have violated the SEC procedure by neglect it would be reasonable to assume that in any other case there must have been an incentive, and this incentive can ONLY be personal.
Suppose it is the case then following observations are of importance. Not ALL defendants, certainly not PPHM as a company, will have had such personal interest because to capitalize on this you needed to have option on the open market. So the incentive may only have existed for one of them or maybe even non of the defendants but people in the surrounding of one or more of them.
And again if it is the case, there is also no prove that ALL defendants knew at the same moment that the discrepancies where 100% confirmed.
Secondly, that would be a new kind of accusation because initially it was claimed by plaintiff that the defendants where all in a position to know that there was something wrong with the clinical trial, and that this was confirmed at such degree, that they should have stopped the PR from Sept 7th, 2012 BEFORE the Presentation in Chicago started. AF made sure this became impossible that morning because the slides leaked and he proliferated that news so fast that the SEC halted PPHM on NASDAQ and the news was out. So even if one of the plaintiffs would have wanted to stop the news just before 15:30 PM that afternoon it was impossible because it leaked in the morning.
Now who was that BP? That is what we will know when the locked PACER file opens in December (and if December was chosen then that means PPHM doesn't mind disclosure anymore behind that date), or if the amendments come online in PACER, whatever occurs first.
The 15 meetings are without any doubt referring to 15 different parties. If not, and one has 15 meeting with the SAME party or 5 meetings with say 3 different parties, then these parties must have had REAL HIGH INTEREST in Bavi! Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I would make an appointment, see how it goes and then make a next one, and certainly not schedule 5, let alone 15, meetings at ones with the same party.
So 15 BP's that is a lot of possibilities. And you may be assured that all big boys such as Abbott Labs, Pfizer, Roche/Genetech, Sanofi, Novartis, Bayer, Merck and even at that time BristolMS where there!
Those BPs could NOT afford to NOT be at the table! Even if it just was to hear out what PPHM had to tell and even if they wouldn't have been interest any further AT ALL! At least ONE made it sufficiently far for PPHM to consider BoD seats, and all, and THAT ONE knows or MAY know more.
That is the one that plaintiff is after and if PPHM opposes disclosure of that name then THAT ONE is still, AT LEAST, on a PPHM short list and that ones NAME is in the amendments!
If I should make an educated guess I would add Sanofi to that list because of SK's recent declarations and given Sanofi's market position and their Docetaxel pipeline under 'generic manufacturers' fire. Pfizer has a huge oncology gap and could make up with Bavi and they also have a PD-1. I wonder about Abott Labs! They have split off ABBVIE and position it as a big research entity where PPHM should fit nicely, but that happened AFTER SEPT 2012 (maybe Abott itself was at the table in a forward looking strategy). Genentech has a digital imaging relation with PPHM but Roche clearly has problems with Avastin and today even more then at the time by what was disclosed to the public since. Merck has an aggressive 3rd party know-how acquisition strategy and also has a PD-1 flavor.
So most in that list have some reason to want Bavi and I am sure that most of those 15 all where at the table! Question is DOES PLAINTIFF KNOW WHICH OF THESE BP'S KNOW MORE. And if so, how did plaintiff know. And if plaintiff knows, did he know BEFORE too that that BP was at the table? Was he then trading on inside/leaked information and therefor had a big and strong PPHM position on Sept 24th and woke up with a shock on Monday Sept 24th, black Monday. And last but not least, was he in that PPHM position for himself or for that or another BP?
Many questions and better then series on TV!
