Hmmm.... now does it all make sense why they felt it was necessary on Dec 28 to initiate those early...early untimely options at $1.18 and set up that Prospectus Supplement for $75M via MLV...... what are the chances it has something to do with this now known CTO filed today which was left out of their Dec 10,2012 Quarterly Report?
I say the chances are good because by that date (Dec 10) they would have known the basic extent or should we just say minimal disruption to their ph IIb NSCLC trial results.
If you search the Form 10-Q from Dec 10, 2012, the one to which this CTO pertains to, the only places where something is removed due to confidentiality are sections dealing with various loan agreements. Nothing about any mergers or buyouts. Just look in the 10-Q.
If I remember correctly, not one of the previous CTs has amounted to anything that drove explicit value for pphm. In other words, they have had minimal or no effect on the pps or the do or die day to day position of the company. IMO a lot of ado for nothing.