This continues to strike me as a combination of a poorly handled PR situation and a boatload of panic selling. I don't think this scandal will amount to much. They paid people to promote the company. Big deal. They picked a company to do it that turned out to be a little scummy and unethical. Big deal.
What facts have changed? Unless the drug data was fabricated or otherwise altered, don't they still have the same potential success with this drug? Don't they have about $100 million in cash? Don't they appear to have the full support of the FDA? I think they have all those things, along with a very poorly handled PR situation. Is this really a $2 or $3 or $4 stock? Where are other stocks with a drug that looks this promising? If this drug shows any success near the levels it has shown, isn't this a multi-billion dollar market cap?
I'm not a big fan of scalpelxpert45 -- don't even know him, but see he's posting 12 times a minute. That gets old. Nor does the guy who tells me he's a mensa member terribly sway me. I'm glad he's got a very high IQ - I'm not sure that's the key to this situation. I'm not a pumper nor a basher. Just trying to make sense of this situation.
My guess is this thing blows over. Does that take a week, a month or a quarter -- not sure. Does the panic selling continue and drive the stock down to $2. I don't know. They've got $2 per share in cash, so that would seem a little ridiculous. I don't know why the company is not coming out to defend themselves. Maybe they have lawyers telling them to stay quiet. Personally, I think the best defense in this situation is a good offense. "We chose the wrong PR company, but the facts remain the same. We believe in our company and the drug we're trying to bring to market." At least say something and don't just take the beating. Absence of a statement makes everyone believe only those they hear.
@lessman I don't think this will be over for a long time...because of all the pending litigation which will take over 2 years to get to trial. If the SEC gets involved that escalates it to a legal situation and again all the civil litigation gets pushed back till the criminal case is complete.
I've owned both stocks for sometime before the spin-off of GALE. I sold a little over half at $7 when my covered calls exercised. I was upset only half sold as I'd like to have another 4K to buy something else. I think both stocks in the near term are going down as litigation costs money and uses resources. I think GALE will go down to the $1-2 level before it bottoms. As for CYTR I think we could see $1.50-2 level before it bottoms. When its gets to that level its a buy with a stage 3 drug...but that drug is years away from entering the market.
Don't be surprised if both companies aren't shopped, sold, and settle the civil litigation so there's no production request for documents which could potentially lead to a criminal case.
CEO has his hands full and most likely knew about this. I believe he didn't do his dd and just let it happen. He will know have to lawyer up and either admit he blew it (which I think he did) or defend himself and drag this on for a long, long time.
It's all about the lawyering at this point.
Yes, it may take a little time but this will blow over. People calling for criminal charges are crazy. Read Adam F's latest article- he says the biggest issue is people from CYTR proofread PR articles... Is that al he's got... Shorts will cover and "The Street" brotherhood moves onto its next short.
I don't believe the biggest issue is people from CYTR proofread the article, because I don't think that amounts to squat. So what if they proofread the article. I don't see that even being unethical, if the company wants to ensure facts are correct. Even if the company themselves wrote the article and someone else published it. Big deal. I owned a company and a magazine did a profile on us and they asked me to write most of the article. If the facts are correct, who cares? I heard the issue may be that they didn't disclose that the articles were paid for when they were posted. I'm not a lawyer and god knows the greedy lawyers will try to find any way that someone crossed the line, but I don't see this being that big a deal. Maybe some people will get slapped on the wrist, but really -- this is about PR articles. Once we cut through all this junk, what's left. The same facts that were there to begin with. Someone correct me if I'm way off base here.