The last time I heard a filing date mentioned, it was third quarter 2001. You assume one Q slide; better than Ead predictions, but still I am bothered by all these implied delays. I think the company should make a formal sattement, either reconfirming 3Q01, or giving a revised date. If the date has to be revised, lets have a realistic date, and no BS
The company cannot and will not revise the date officially since they have no idea when they will get all their mess cleaned up, as I see it. Instead, they send their lackeys here to post propaganda. Has anyone every bothered to ask how all this got so screwed up in the first place? hmmmmm?
I assume a one quarter slide for two reasons. First, in biotech-speak, "2H01" is code for Q401 and the company is no longer referring to "mid01" which is code for Q301. Secondly, the trial completed enrollment in February, and there needs to be time allowed for the last patients to respond to Rubitecan - and Gemzar-failure patients can enjoy months of extended life.
There was additional good news and bad news on the CC IMO. As to the former, the Ph3 salvage therapy arm is more than 90% enrolled and these patients don't live as long, hence final data should be forthcoming before a Q202 approval for Rubitecan. However, the bad news was that the Ph3 chemo-naive arm (e.g., Rubitecan vs. Gemzar) is NOT 90% enrolled to date - and this directly contradicts statements that Rubinfield made during an earlier (December, I believe) conference call. Moreover, these chemo-naive patients obviously have longer life expectancies. Too, the trial has been enrolling patients for quite some time, so it will likely take several months to enroll the last patients. Hence, data from this trial may not be available for more than a year's time. I'm more bummed by the overt contradiction in what SUPG management reported rather than the actual delay, because for reasons previously stated, I think Rubitecan will be widely adopted and used off-label.
All in all though, the fact that SUPG has a Technology Value below $150m, a very stable balance sheet and a pipeline as advanced as they have (plus increasing Nipent sales) all has me thinking that it's a steal at these prices - or at $12 a share.
FWIW, I don't currently own any SUPG. I've traded in and out of it this year, but am not yet ready to commit until the negative momentum has ceased - not the market's, but the company's. However, I can assure you that I will have a full position well before they start disseminating new Rubitecan data.