ku, ABSOLUTELY it is in NO WAY a move against BoD management. On the contrary.
1) We were sabotaged in 2012 (2nd ln NSCLC) dose switching!
2) We can fairly say we probably had some previous, less obvious, counter action (1st ln NSCLC control arm (Q4/2011-Q1/2012).
3) Pancreatic open trial and there it is the Randomising that smells.
4) The 2012 strange behaviour of our Banker with the loan retraction WITHOUT giving PPHM any change to prove they could get the PIII (which they did).
5) The continuous lid on the PPS and the large shorting and naked shorting the PPHM stock is submitted to.
6) SUNRISE, again a control arm outperforming incident while bavituximab performed well.
It is my opinion that forces are working AGAINST PPHM/Bavituximab. So with a poison pill, a 4 man BoD guarding it and for sure triggering it in case of a hostile attack, with Delaware corporate favourable laws, iron tied bylaws making BoD/management almost untouchable if someone would want to dislocate one or more of them to install a board that might NOT trigger the poison pill, ... So BoD/management might be placed under pressure and a letter action can diffuse that because it it draw to much attention in a way such party knows the BoD cannot stop it since it are the masses of the market reacting. So we are PROTECTING the BoD in sorts from possible blackmail.
How long do you think some will realise that the only way to get through is getting to BoD/management members? If some party went through all the efforts of the above listed anti-PPHM actions over the years then we are not dealing with just anyone. The party UNDERSTANDS clinical trials, knows how and were to twist the arm and clearly has pocket depth or market knowledge to keep the lid on financing means other then running in the arms or controllable bankers.
This party will have identified that just increasing a PPHM position will not work. So, a reverse split followed and putting pressure on BoD/management in order NOT to split the shelf is the ONLY REMAINING OUTCOME!
Here is the math which you will see is FINANCIALLY NEUTRAL but NOT VOTING POWER NEUTRAL!!!!
Assume PPHM has 1000 outstanding shares at .50$ and 1000 issuable shares on the shelf. After a reverse split of, say, 10 to 1 to keep it easy, there will be 100 outstanding shares at 5$.
Scenario A: The shelf splits too.
Only 100 shares remain on the shelf due to the split, if one buys them it costs 100 x 5$ which is the same as before the split, 1000 x 0.50$. So voting power of shelf in balance before and after 50%. Shareholders when the VOTED the shelf in have made their decision based on THAT knowledge. In other words they accepted the shelf KNOWING how much their voting power could be diluted by it when ALL shares would be issued.
Scenario B: The shelf doesn't split
Still only 100 outstanding shares ate 5$ remain, BUT 1000 shares remain on the shelf. Financially PPHM will raise more cash from 1000 x 5$ vs 1000 x 0.50$ and some may claim that this is good for the 100 outstanding shares because for every 1000 shares issued from the shelf PPHM will get the equivalent on income of 100 after split shares, hence DOUBLE market capital.
But the VOTING POWER is diluted. 100 outstanding shares only vote for 10% vs 50% when the shelf is split when the shelf completely issued. And in acquisition scenarios a deal at CURRENT market prices could take place allowing a party to on its own get a majority vote, because ALL OTHER shareholders gathered would only have a maximum of 10% and NO ACCESS to shelf shares if PPHM doesn't want to.
That means that if the shelf is NOT SPLIT the current shareholders MIGHT be hi-jacked from their investment because a majority share holder could sell the bavituximab to a subsidiary and collect on the future revenue their, far from the current shareholders. There may be some discussion about the VALUE at which they sell it BUT after 2012/2016 clinical trail problems there may be a window of opportunity to claim the value of Bavituximab is not that high all together.
So what WE SHAREHOLDERS must do IMO is to be sure we remain invested in where the Bavituximab pipeline profits will be realised and not let a unsplit shelf undermine that.
I have been asked for a model letter to send to PPHM/SEC/NASDAQ but it needs to be done by someone with good English skills and vocabulary. Furthermore the 'shelf' has an official name (we call it so but in the vote it was called differently).
I think there are several posters on here that could post some stuff, even only fragments that can be put together. In this I wanted to trigger what IMO is IMPORTANT for us, because I do not worry about the fact whether PPHM is going to be successful once I saw there new strategy with PI trials, Avid extension and now even a second short term money maker Exosomes.
I have posted several years ago that there was at some point going to be that ONE MOMENT in the storm that we would have to pass to cash in. Well that moment is NOW and ends March 2017 at which point PPHM must either be above 1$ since more then 10 business days or do a reverse split or move to the pink sheets (which they cant' because that is as good as dropping the ATM possibilities to raise money)!
So the more letters served to PPHM with copies to SEC and NASDAQ telling them that your vote for the PPHM shelf increase was based on a calculation of a voting power dilution potential that you accepted and that not reverse splitting the shelf (and PPHMP and options conditions that related to the common PPHM stock) would without your permission change the voting power potential as of the moment that a certain amount of shelf shares would be issued after the reverse split and that hence you would take legal action, will keep everybody alert.
I understand that if you have 1000 shares it is not a big deal. But if you have 10K+ you might want to write a letter IMO.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
