Is it by shares traded during that time or by number of shares held at the beginning and end of the period. What is the formula?
Give it a rest already. No one is fooled or discouraged by your relentless negativity anymore (if they ever were). You spent your credibility long ago and your posts are at this point nothing more than a nuisance. Take a break.
What, exactly, is your agenda on this message board? It's clear that you are not here to inform or exchange ideas. So, why are you here?
As per Investopedia:
"Naked shorting is the illegal practice of short selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist. Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock, or determine that it can be borrowed, before they sell it short. But due to various loopholes in the rules and discrepancies between paper and electronic trading systems, naked shorting continues to happen.
While no exact system of measurement exists, most point to the level of trades that fail to deliver from the seller to the buyer within the mandatory three-day stock settlement period as evidence of naked shorting. Naked shorts may represent a major portion of these failed trades."
We can hope that shining a light on this in the courts will stop this practice. Who knows, the SEC might even wake up and do its job.
As per Wikipedia:
"Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc."
Looks like this applies here.
The ruling allows suits in state courts to proceed. Does that mean that someone would have to sue the financial firms in 50 courts to get traction, or is a ruling in one state usable in another state? If so, how?
Apaziquone $500 million revenue
SPI-2012 $1 billion revenue
Each $100 million contributes $0.60 EPS after taxes -- total earnings per share S9.
Assume a PE of 20-25 for a buyout -- $180 - $225 per share.
Timing is everything, but I'm definitely not lol.
PoZiotinib just sweetens the deal.
"SPI-2012 and Poziotinib is front and center"
Probably a hedge against a possible Apaziquone CRL. Apaziquone is the most immediate and therefore most significant milestone. Approval is by no means a sure thing. Focusing attention away from it and towards SPI-2012 makes sense from an investor relations standpoint.
Chances are many or most of those contracts were signed prior to the expected approval date in December of last year. That should hasten the market penetration of Evomela.