InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Frustrated

06/27/13 6:47 PM

#130031 RE: Protector #130025

BTW, there was only one party at the table to negotiate a partnership BEFORE ASCO (if my info is correct - conditional statement - couldn't verify with a second source). There are more then one now! So that raises the stress and with this cash PPHM bought themselves time and negotiating power

First of all thanks for the civility. The problem I have is all these statements that we had one party to negotiate before ASCO and now there is more than one. Can you prove we have more than one if anybody negotiating right now? So far all these statements predicted have not come true. It is like the boy who cried wolf. I believe mgmt always had leveraged because of the ATM. They could sell shares at 30 cents if they like cause it would not affect mgmt since there shares are practically at zero cost and they will just replenish. It just seems they say one thing and do another. They said they would not use the ATM and then they do an enormous ATM and they don't even get a good price. My gut feeling is if they had the goods a deal would have already been made. IMO BP's offers are just going to get less and less unless they actually have more than one legitimate interest. To date how many deals has Mary Boyd made after all this time and how much money have we had to pay our acquisition lawyer who has had no work. What are all the workers going to do now until we start enrolling patients. We are throwing money away. All imo.