CVAS shareholders will vote down deal at these prices. 84% premium to a 30% premium in one day ain't gonna make it. Especially because it's for stock. There has to be some sort of guaranteed premium for this to fly.
You could be right. Apparently the number of DNDN shares in the deal is fixed, so CVAS shareholders aren't getting $73 million anymore, at least as of the moment.
Another point for DNDN is that the CVAS primary trial(rNAPc2) is apparently paid for in advance. This suggests that the CVAS cash could go primarily toward the Provenge PC program.
You get .45 shares of DNDN for every share of CVAS that you own assuming the deal goes through as it is at presently stated. That means you can buy DNDN for about $4 per share by buying CVAS right now. The reason CVAS is not trading higher is due to the risk premium of the deal not closing as is or at all. The number of shares is not limited, it's a fixed percentage.
Doutful. They will likely cut back on employes at both locations to lower the burn rate to something less than $2.5 million/month. DNDN will need the promise of the Phase II trials from CVAS to bring in investors and in case Provenge crashes or if they cannot partner it near term.
I checked the CVAS message board, apparentlly, prior to the deal there was not much faith in the phase II trial, but it had already been funded. With DNDN in control they will do what ever is necessary, including both companies R&D,the need for mutiple facilities, overlapping functions, etc. This was a smart move by both companies. DNDN is now stronger than ever. It has cash and a diversified pipeline addressing major markets. I can see oppotunities to out-license programs that neither company could do before the merger.
The CVAS programs or the DNDN programs will have to be evaluated. The result will be additional cash.
Now DNDN is in 2 major therapuetic areas that are both expensive to move in and develop. This is not good IMO.
Also, much depends on Provenge, and some/many believe the data so far are not so great. If Provenge were to fail, CVAS shareholders would no doubt begin the shareholder suit parade. All-in-all, if this is simply a way for DNDN to get cash, IMHO they should have raised it on the strength of Provenge. If they have been unable to do that, a "short-cut" like this may mean that internal confidence in Provenge may not be as great as many hope or believe.
Really? You may be reading a different release. The one I saw headlined a single, one, uno patient - essentially a case report. Then it recapped the essentially negative Provenge trial that was positive only on sub-group analysis but not overall.
MAXM flourished on such wishful thinking which does not pass regulatory muster. IMHO, most investors now understand that the predictive value, historically speaking, for postive sub-group analyses turning out well on restudy, is very low.
I'm being very polite. I don't believe I'm wrong, and there are no data to refute this, only your reliance on the same data I'm mentioning. This deal could reflect some internal shakiness in Provenge IMHO, definitely reflects an inability to fund DNDN as it is today, and the market would seem to agree on this negative perspective.
I think that the market sees this for what it is--a grab for cash.
This is not the first transaction like this in biotech and it will not be the last. There is an assumption that Provenge is partnerable, where is the hard core data to support that? It does not exist. The trials have to be done and those trials are expensive. Everyone seems to suggest that JNJ is interested. Why would they pay up now when they can get it later and when they can see the final data? Sure they might pay a little more later, but the big pay days for biotech drugs, ala IMCL are long over. All of the money they just inherited will go to pushing Provenge forward. Will it be worth it? You will have to wait and see, but if this thing goes through you will have to deal with the downward pressure on the stock as CVAS holders rotate out. Mitch Gold is placing a very big bet.
Not so. Besides the single responder, the other "positive" data were ONLY on the Gleason subset. Here it is from the release:
D9901 demonstrated significant increases in time to disease progression as well as time to onset of cancer-related pain following Provenge treatment in men with androgen independent prostate cancer who have a Gleason Score of 7 or less. In that group of patients...
I challenge any of the hypsters here to document any controlled Provenge study where there was an OVERALL a positive finding on the prospectively defined endpoints. I do not believe those data exist at the present time. They may if the trials works, but that is the gamble.
In order to evaluate a technology fairly, you need to acknowledge what the data do and do not show. This is not being a "short" as some have accused, rather, it is recognizing the hazards of relying on post-hoc subset analyses to predict overall success. Right now the positive spin is coming from hypesters who appear not to appreciate what these studies show, and that isn't very sound IMHO.
ivesting in yet to be fda approved drugs is a big gamble, that said the dec. 11 press release in my veiw talks of significatant
p-value of 0.002 and a treatment effect of 78%
...and after 6 months the randomization had a greater than 8-fold advantagle in progression
-free survival ---34.7% verse 4 % of placebo.
I think for dead men walking there is clear
benifit here, as there is no therapy for this group. patients with gleason scale above 8 did not benifit