% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • iamdeebo831 iamdeebo831 Nov 29, 2012 1:14 AM Flag

    CTO is not news. Does not mean partnership.

    First my apologies I posted the same CTO twice in my original post. This is the CTO filed on Nov 19th:

    November19, 2012
    Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    File No. 0-15313 - CF#28918
    Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. submitted an application under Rule 24b-2 requesting an extension of a previous grant of confidential treatment for information it excluded from the Exhibits to a Form 10-Q filed on November 7, 2008.
    Based on representations by Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that this information qualifies as confidential commercial or financial information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), the Division of Corporation Finance has determined not to publicly disclose it. Accordingly, excluded information from the following exhibit(s) will not be released to the public for the time period(s) specified:
    Exhibit 10.1 through October 16, 2014
    For the Commission, by the Division of Corporation Finance, pursuant to delegated authority:
    Craig E. Slivka
    Special Counsel


    OK, so we see that Savient had been granted a Confidential Treatment Order in regards to Exhibit 10.1, from a 10-Q filed on Nov. 7, 2008. OK, so you go to the SEC website and look at exhibit 10.1 from form 10-Q filed on Nov. 7. Now what do you find? Its a commericial supply agreement between Enzon Pharmaceuticals and Savient. OK great, so whats at the top of that supply agreement:

    "Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the
    Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterisks denote omissions. "

    So what are these confidential materials? Well, we don't know exactly because they're ommitted, but we can look at the document and see everything except the ommitted parts and clearly see why a company would not want such things available to the public. The agreement includes what materials Savient will ship to Enzon so they can make the product, it includes time tables, pricing agreements, testing parameters, and more. heres an example.

    "1.5 “Bulk Product” shall mean the bulk solution of [**] supplied by Savient to Enzon pursuant to this Agreement. "

    OK so we've found the confidential information so why was another CTO filed on Nov 19th of this year? Well lets see when the first time they filed for confidential treatment of this document. OK found it, CTO was filed on Dec. 1, 2008 in regards to exhibit 10.1 from the 10-q. According to that CTO the confidentiality was to last til Oct. 16, 2010. So lets look around that time and see what happened. Ah here it is Sep. 28, 2010 another CTO was filed extending the confidential information til...Oct 16, 2012. Which explains why the latest CTO was just filed. So maybe your wondering why if the previous confidentiality expired on Oct 16, why did this CTO not get filed til Nov. 19th. Is Savient management inept, did they possibly allow trade secrets to potentially be exposed to the public? Well yes, they're inept, but no. You got to remember the CTO is an SEC Order. So savient files an application seeking confidentiality. The SEC, being the worthless, cumbersome beaurocracy it is, takes a look at it and throws it ontop of a big stack of other applications. once they get around to it they rubber stamp it and then file the CTO.

    Ill try and post direct links to the docs in a reply below, but you guys need to just go to the SEC website and do a search. and look through the SEC filings.

    doubleUdoubleUdoubleUdot secDOTgov/edgar/searchedgar/webusersDOThtm

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • *****iamdeeb******

      I cannot thank you enough for taking the time & effort to help us get to the bottom of the SVNT COD issue and help to decipher SEC docs! This board owes you a debt of gratitude.

      For me this solves the puzzle I created for myself and others yesterday trying to understand the connection between the CODs and a possible SVNT partnership(or some similar beneficial share holder event). My conclusion: there there is no connection. End of story.

      Thank you to all of us who've been scratching there heads attempting to contribute to this thread since yesterday. Not a total loss - look how much we've learned.

      kg2931 (Long n Strong SVNT)

      Sentiment: Hold

    • Form 10-Q, exhibit 10.1 from Nov 7, 2008:
      doubleIUdoubleUdoubleU DOT secDOTgov/Archives/edgar/data/722104/000093041308006533/c55511_ex10-1DOThtm

      Original CTO from Dec. 2008:
      doubleIUdoubleUdoubleU DOT secDOTgov/Archives/edgar/data/722104/999999999708046672/filename1DOTpdf

      Follow up CTO from Sep 2010:
      doubleIUdoubleUdoubleU DOT secDOTgov/Archives/edgar/data/722104/999999999710018195/filename1DOTpdf

      and the most recent CTO Nov 19th, 2012
      doubleIUdoubleUdoubleU DOT secDOTgov/Archives/edgar/data/722104/999999999712014638/filename1.pdf