Contrarian view: Dan Junius and Co doing a good job
Seems like we always get some good news after the bad news. If I didn't know better I would think they are timing the bad news events to be publicized just before a good news event. So while they did not directly dispute Adam Fauerstein's recent opinion piece, they responded by showing the money in a new deal that clarifies the linker issue that was put into question by Adam.
Dan is not chasing the stock price as certain whiny posters here and on IV would have him do if it were up to them, but in my opinion it makes him (and IMGN by association) more respectable.
Stock price is a reflection of the progress of any company, and how the management team is moving the company towards its goals. With biotech companies that have not yet become profitable, it is all about the technology and how the management presents that technology. Junius and company have bungled the 901 story from the start. It is completely expected that drugs at this stage of development do not move into phase II trials, that is the purpose of these trials. What Junius allowed to happen (and still is by the way) is letting one drug taint the entire platform by not managing the information. Doing it once, OK, you get a pass on that one. But doing it over and over again? Nope, he is an idiot in my book at this point. He got lucky and was in the right place at the right time in his career and landed at Immunogen. Immunogen can afford better leadership, and they should go out and get it.
News must be released when it happens, they don't control the timing of news. DJ had nothing to do with the technology, what he is supposed to do is put the right team together to make the most of it. The team that evaluates a drug's potential failed in the case of 901. They wasted millions, capital and time that would have been better spent speeding up the new molecules. I am not saying he has an easy job, I think they need a CEO that has successfully developed a drug. Dan has not shown that he's the best person to lead IMGN forward, develop drugs, make the best decisions for shareholders, he's been opportunistic in granting himself and his team options at a low price than selling them. If he is building shareholder value, I have no problems with a CEO making big $, but IMGN has been a public company for 2+ years and might have gone from $12 on the IPO to $15 in 20 years. That's not CELG, REGN, PCYC, ONXX. Let's find someone that been a leader with a successful, high-growth biotech that took drugs from early development through FDA approval, or turned around and sold a company. Tony Coles, Howard Pien from the BOD come to mind and Doug Williams who sold ZGEN and is now at Biogen might be good.