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

Affymax, Inc. Message Board

  • t0m.mirabit0 t0m.mirabit0 Sep 25, 2013 8:52 AM Flag

    If anyone out there in SEC land is interested

    We hope that a thorough investigation of Affy will include Feb.14 and the first attack on Affy shareholders to the tune of 11 million shares just shy of 33%. We hope those responsible we be exposed and held accountable whomsoever they may be. I personally hope anyone who had advanced knowledge of the recalled will be examined, whether they be CEO or clerk, insider or not. As we wait to see if the as yet unproven allegations are true try to be civil.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hopefully there will be some accountability for bold fraudulent statements in the media meant to manipulate the stock as well. The statement including the following "At Least 4x Worse Than" was made by someone without the necessary expertise to do so in my opinion. Casual review of the data presented reveals quality issues. What would an in depth review find? Corrections weren't made and the headline still appears as news when researching the company. O

    • Ancient History - Shows Affymax is not ignored by the SEC. It may have taken 2 years but they got the job done. I hope they're conduct a successful investigation of the Feb 14 event which occurs 1 week before the recall.

      "The Commission's Complaint, which was filed on September 12, 1996,
      alleged that Shank passed material, nonpublic information relating to a
      proposed tender offer for Affymax stock, which she obtained while working
      on the transaction as an executive assistant to the general counsel of an
      Affymax subsidiary, to Roop, and to her mother. According to the
      Complaint, Roop tipped his brother-in-law, who was the subject of a
      separate Commission action, and a friend and business associate, defendant
      Donald Schwartz, who in turn allegedly passed information relating to the
      tender offer to a close friend of his. The Commission alleged that by
      engaging in such conduct, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 14(e)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3

    • You would think a $500 million thief would peak the interest of someone at the SEC.

0.080.0000(0.00%)Oct 21 2:51 PMEDT