OMER hires VP - Clinical just prior to IPO, then the guy leaves just after the IPO!!! Results from Phase 3 trial due out soon. This don't smell right - anyone know what's going on???
I am four foot ten inches tall and was in Bill Clinton's cabinet ... I would stand on a box at the podium to look more normal in height, just wrote a book that explains what happened from the good ole days of the gray flannel suit organization man in the 50's/60's not quite golden, Leave it to Beaver years (beaver don't mean today, what it used to in those simpler times) to today's Supercapitalism that resulted in the wide chasm between the "haves" and the "have-nots". Although I sound liberal as hell, I paradoxically quote both John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman at the very front of my 2007 book. Also, Larry Kudlow frequently has me pontificating on his CNBC daily show.
No more hints.
Can you guess my AKA ?
This is a test of Bio's economics prowess.
Yep, PC I am, been called worse ... midget, wild-ass liberal, investments loser, etc. and that's all after my phD. and Berkley professorship! High school is miserable for a 4' 10" tweed jacket-wearing brain.
VC/Bioconverse/Precision et al, you guy make things too complex. It all boils down to the market phenomenon of supply and demand that answers the questions: why is the stock down 45% from IPO and why doest the stock continue to trend down?
Bionconverse, how about you and your biotech buddies do a little posting to start that discussion of Omeros' technology and corporate outlook? May help your disappointment about the posts to date where investors are not "bashing" the company...rather it seems they are simply trying to understand the issues surrounding the company in order to make an informed investment decision. Maybe they are already aware of the potential upside you refer to but are balancing that with what seems to be valid concerns raised on this board.
Precisioncastrated, I’ll take your comments as a compliment and thank your for a chuckle. No, I’m not an attorney, but a long-in-the-tooth biotekkie interested in local stocks. I jumped into this Message Board after I heard that WSJ analysts gave Omeros a “strong buy.”
I do disagree that a regular VP leaving after a brief period (as versus a C-Level employee, Director or even EVP) rises to the level of a “Material Disclosure.” Given that Material Disclosures can lead to a temporary trading halt, neither I nor my biotech buddies think that this event fits the bill.
Going back thru the posts on this Message Board, I am disappointed that this site seems dedicated to bashing the company rather than providing a professional and balanced discussion of Omeros’ technology and corporate outlook. I'm leaving this Message Board now and am off to check on some publicly traded device companies.
For what its worth, given your roll the dice and cross your fingers attitude, Bio, I think you have a greater chance of being hired as an Omeros executive than Vee Cee. Are you saying with the open CFO situation that the company needn't go beyond the call of law, substance over form to keep shareholders informed on legal matters. You would be a fine pea in the CEO's pod of a Sr. Management team at OMER, maybe as the senior inhouse attorney ?
Interesting analsysis...let's dissect it.
1. Just what are "industry standards" you refer to? It seems more typical for companies to announce the comings and goings of senior management - independent of whether or not they are "principal officers" (as you stated in prior post).
2. "...the VP was only at the company for a short period". Exactly the point and possible concern that should be immediately quashed by stating why the exec left after such a short period. Otherwise, the void gets filled with speculation, rumor and it's usually not positive.
3. "...his leaving would not expected to significantly impact clinical programs". Why is this the case? Again, the speculation is that the VP departure WILL have an impact on the clincial programs and furthermore may have had concerns about the clinical programs.
4. What is your bias toward non-disclosure? Seems you were already aware of the departure which may be biasing your opinion. Go ask 10 people interested in Omeros - current shareholders, potential shareholders, sell-side and buy-side analysts et al - to see what their "opinion" is re disclosure of the VP Clinical after six short months and just prior to Phase 3 results. It's not a trivial matter.
Why not err on the side of full transparency instead of having this type of news come out on chat boards? What is the downside of "telling it like it is"? Something like the following: The VP left for X reason (another opportunity, health reasons, family matters etc) and the Company plans to fill the position ASAP.
If in fact the departure was known about in advance due to a "known issue" such as health or family reasons, why didn't the company either hire someone or at least bring in a top-notch consultant to make for a smooth transition?
Appreciate the dialogue, Bioconverse, this type of discussion is helpful to the investing public.
Regarding the statement about disclosure requirements other than those governed by the SEC, was referring directly to the stock exchanges and there regs surrounding press releases etc
Can someone with firm SEC knowledge clarify Omeros’ disclosure requirements regarding the departure of the VP Clinical? My understanding is that SEC Form 8-K requires disclosure only of the departure of Directors or Principal Officers. Since the VP Clinical was not a Principal Officer, if my understanding is accurate, Omeros has no disclosure obligation.
Seems from your question that you are fairly well-versed in SEC regs. Are you also aware of the public company disclosure requirements that are not governed directly by SEC - for example the need to put out timely press releases?
It's a relatively simple test on whether or not to disclose via a press release or SEC Form 8-K (or both): is the information "material" to a potential or current shareholder?
One could argue that the departure of the VP Clinical of a company with lead product in Phase 3 trials with results expected in a few months (mid-2010 with NDA filed by end of 2010 assuming positive results)is "material". Investors should be provided the reason for the departure - could be something fairly straightforward (health issues, family matters etc) or could be something much more complex.
Other relevant factors that weigh in favor of full disclosure: the VP Clinical was hired in mid-2009 - a few short months ago - and the hiring was announced via press release. If the hiring was disclosed, it seems that the departure should be disclosed.
Public company disclosure can be more of an exercise in full transparency, fairness, good judgement, risk management vs. reading from the SEC regs.