BSC, furthermore the details would not hurt PPHM either.
PPHM at the time was not HALF the PPHM of today. Since AbbVie :
- we had the new understanding of the MOA last 2012/begin 2013, much better then the old one and including BOTH Macrophages and MDSCs. The SCOPE of application bavituximab therewith becomes HUGE as updated recently by the company.
- we thought the 2nd ln NSCLC PII only improved the SOC by 113%, no it seems it did while being sabotage at 25% in Bavituximabs disadvantage. So the results are MUCH more impressive then whatever they may have put on the table for AbbVie.
- We didn't have FDA PIII design approval. We do no and we have 154 Clinical trail centres open world-wide running SUNRISE. That are TRHEE cards gone for AbbVie, no more doubt about approval, no more doubt about ability of being able to start the trial and no more thread of pending delays forcing companies to make too early decisions.
- We didn't have a Fast Track, the FDA gave us one since. That is a deal changer because it impacts time-to-market.
- We didn't know we would be granted TWO early look-ins for SUNRISE. That also can have its impact on time to market.
- We had loans, creditors and a going concern, NOW we have 60 Milj Cash, NO creditors and no going concern any more. We have the PPHMP funding in place and the ATM as a means that in Sept 2012 SAVED the COMPANY. That gives us better negotiation power and would take away arguments or at least stress on which AbbVie could count at the time.
- Our pipeline/IP was encumbered by the loan, now it is 100% unencumbered and we extended the IP with the BetaBody patent making us the eminent player on the PS targeting market which bavituximab is all about.
- In 2012 AVid wasn't running that well. Today AVid brings PPHM 20+Milj$
each years on income and provides Bavituximab AT COST, makes PPHM independent from 3rd party Bavi productions, capacity and scheduling which is a strategic advantage. And we are extending Avid more then 100% for next summer with the newest single-use reactor technology. That also puts PPHM in a better position because they can produce their OWN drug which most small cap biotech with a research department cannot when it comes to commercial production.
- We have KOLs with good reputation and which seem to actively work with the program, according their own declarations. That support was non existent at the time. We had at the best the good reports from the ASCO scientific committee.
So, whoever will sit at the table will NEVER be able to again make a SAME deal at the SAME conditions. PPHM from now is 10 times the PPHM from Sept 2012 when PPHM sat down with AbbVie.
So DISCLOSURE would be a GOOD thing, furthermore it would be an extra argument in the lawsuit against our CRO CSM for the suffered damages and in the CA because it would prove PPHM could have NO hopes on getting away with the dose switching if they would have know because there was another party, AbbVie, that had to look into the data in detail for the deal in the make that would FOR SURE discover it.
Market Data 
Markets 
