<The 75-million bond subscribers however are fully aware of there is problem with CMC. So why would the lawsuit have any effect on the current financing?>
well, if you had $75M and just agreed to loan that to someone based on information they provided that suggested the CMC issues in the CR were not serious and posed no problems re: approvability, and then right after you agree to pricing of said convertible financing, someone else files a lawsuit based on material undisclosed CMC issues, i suspect you, as lender, would probably want at least some clarification, if not ironclad assurances from the management written right into a modified agreement, essentially guaranteeing that there are no material undisclosed CMC issues that imperil approvability of Provenge as well as providing satisfactory security to the lender(s) (if not already included) for repayment of financing if the lawsuit is successful.
i'm not an expert by any means, but is it unreasonable to think that such potential rewording/reworking of the agreement perhaps could delay the closing of the deal beyond Monday?...which could, imo, trigger panic selling caused by people associating any delay with the lawsuit, suggesting that there may be some merit to it. that could provide the 40M shorts with an opportunity to cover at a lower price...
<Nevertheless, the 483 thing explains why the company did not do a secondary prior to 5/9, can you imagine the outcry if that had been done?>
well, if the CMC issue raised in 483 (& subsequent CR) was not serious and not a deciding factor in terms of approval as suggested by management's statements, then i don't see why it necessarily would (or should) have held up a financing before 5/9 - after all, the 483 was not considered serious enough to prevent Gold & other insiders from selling...
the more i think about this lawsuit, the more peculiar the apparent "coincidental" timing of it, coming just after the pricing of the convertible and just before it is due to close - it certainly seems like the hedgies are trying to directly interfere with DNDN's access to cash while attempting to drive the share price lower now.
why go to all this trouble and why the apparent urgency to intervene now, when approval is at least 2 years away, which should imo, cause the stock to drift lower as time passes? perhaps they sense the vulnerability of their apparent huge exposure, and having apparently been caught off guard once already by the change in the efficacy question and positive panel recommendation, they are wary of the potential for mounting political pressure to expose the basis for the FDA's indefensible decision that could conceivably implicate them?
i don't currently own any shares, but it is difficult not to follow what is going on with this story.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
