Replies to post #372799 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[marzan]

GM, your option iii running on fumes exercising warrants is not an option at all because LP et al has to give 61 days advance notice to trigger their hundreds of millions of warrants. I think this reverts back to one of your first two options. Your own logic doesn't make sense. It is a kind of FUD.

[Dr Bala]

Thanks, Gus. I agree with your post. Hopefully the scenario #1 that you mentioned is in the works. I also think that they have the TLD by now. That was fairly clear from LL's talk at the University of Utah. TLD first or b/o first? or publication before b/o? I have seen so many posts with differing opinions. One thing is for sure: the company is being super careful and is holding its cards close to its vest.

[Poor Man -]

Not sure where that $50MM comes from, but let’s just say it’s true. You’re making the case for either a pending buyout or a JV with a significant upfront payment.

The fact (and these are facts) that management has done very little in terms of preparing the company to uplist or remain independent speaks for itself.

Here's the problem: If TLD is positive, they need to raise a significant amount of money in anticipation of pursuing regulatory approvals and commercialization (around $50 million?). But I don't see how they can do that without either increasing the amount of shares that are authorized for further issuance or doing a reverse split to bring the number under the current authorization.

[MI Dendream]

Assuming your three options are the extent of the options, I think you can eliminate option iii.

There is an explanation for why we have not heard TLD yet even though we are greater than six months past data lock...likely ASCO, less likely publication. I suspect we will hear which one to expect at the ASM. There is no reasonable explanation for the company not having received data output by now...none whatsoever. They know the results....period. I do not think it is a realistic argument to say they did not have data in hand by the February ASCO submission deadline (March for LBAs).

If one does not believe that a pharma company needs to release negative information in a timely fashion (i.e., 4 day rule), then one surely believes that a company only has the flexibility to wait for the appropriate platform to frame the release of mixed or negative data that may be somewhere between a dark cloud with a silver lining to a silver lining with a touch of grey to flat out positive result. That platform is ASCO. I believe that clearly negative data DOES need to follow the 4day rule and know that general counsel for at least 2 large companies agree with this assessment. It would be nearly impossible to argue that withholding a mixed or negative result can extend beyond ASCO. They had the data in time to submit and there is no better platform available in the near future.

Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that if we do not see data at ASCO, then that data is predominantly positive.

[exwannabe]

You do not consider the possibility that they do exactly what they did in 2017/18

They clearly needed to raise the authorized share limit as they were way over it and in need of funds. The ASM comes around and rather strangely did not have a vote on it.

Then a few months later called a special meeting to raise the limit to 1.2B.

If that is what they did the last time they had the same problem, it has to be considered possible this time.