No my kids, in their 20's, are not double taxed, yet. If they would be paid more, they would be double taxed. My oldest is getting close but then the Loonie got whacked so she still has a ways to go. But they still have to file taxes in both the country where they live/work and in the US. We're still figuring out the crazy EU systems, which is not like the US. My daughter is a citizen of one EU country and is in a graduate (supported) program in another EU country. The beauty of this program is that it is a research-focused masters degree where, if she wished to continue to a Ph.D., it feeds into Cambridge (UK). If she wants to do more policy analysis (in her case, climate change is a good thing) she can work anywhere in the EU or back to the US without work permits. Or right next door to this university (in Sweden) is a large start up complex of companies and VC's financing them. It beats anything I've seen in the Bay Area or San Diego. No bad for a university started in the 1600's. But housing is a problem as the kids are on their own and, unlike a US college, the university doesn't provide housing or arrange for housing or act as a nanny to the kids.
Perhaps Walker's proposed fence idea at the Canadian border is really to keep Americans in rather than keep Canadians out.
There are huge problems with the lack of a coherent immigration policy in the US. Even worse, there is no coherent policy or program articulated by any presidential candidate of either flavor (and neither a republican nor democrat am I). But what's worse is that other countries are starting to kick our b_utts due to superior immigration policies. I have two 20-something kids. Both have left the country for better opportunities (that's the trifecta of inequality as income, wealth and opportunity). Both have superior health insurance and medical care than I do, with an emphasis on prevention. My oldest just got her Canadian permanent residency (green card equivalent) because she got much better job opportunities north of the border that idiot Walker wants to build a fence around. Youngest is a dual (US/EU) citizen and is now supported in a prestigious (biological science) graduate program in a top European university as an EU citizen (no tuition for EU citizens) even with a BS degree from a US university.
Pretty soon, Canada will be an economic power due to their liberal immigration policy to encourage and support immigration of educated people. The US will continue its brain drain of our young and educated people, like my kids. And none of the candidates are addressing this issue. It is partially a result of too many years of partisan gridlock where nothing got done. Yes I'm mad as H and my kids decided not to take it any more, and left. And I support their decisions. We'll see if my kids also participate in a growing trend and disclaim US citizenship (US is only country that taxes its citizens who earn all of their income outside of the US and live outside of the US).
Well fraz, going to the SEC is the correct course of action for CTIX, not a private lawsuit for defamation. It is a criminal penalty that is warranted (in my opinion) and that is the most powerful course of legal action, not a civil defamation lawsuit. I'm posed this opinion here before.
But while I'm gone Fraz, you're going to need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I've been critical of Leo's management, not the three drugs that are the CTIX assets. I've said repeatedly that I'm long and even posted that I added long shares this week. Being critical of bozo management (like Leo) does not mean I'm short the stock. In fact, it means that I care about the stock/company and desire for the share price to go up, such as by bringing in competent management and an independent Board. This is a big opportunity for an activist investor/hedge fund to come in and fix this management/Board mess so that the assets can receive a higher market valuation. An activist investor group can create a win-win for all of us, the activist fund and retail little folks like me and Lee. WAKE UP FRAZ and smell the opportunity! Let's start the Boot Out Leo Drums
So what would I like to do? Respond to the delusional numb #$%$ on the board or engage in primal screams with my girlfriend Kate Upton?
I think you're reading too much into what Scott said. He showed that the short article was a misleading fabrication. But he didn't "bless" the long thesis for CTIX. He (rightly so, in my opinion) pointed out the risks that remain with the three CTIX drugs, two of which are at very early stages of clinical development. In fact, I read what Scott wrote as very consistent with my postings on this board that significant risks remain, particularly for K and P. This is no different for any small pharma drug development company. I also look at the probabilities and never assume that FDA approval is a given. Shift always happens in pharma. Expect the unexpected.
Scott's article was not an endorsement of Leo's over-hyping management style. He even indicated that the confidence in the probability of the drugs succeeding would be significantly enhanced is Leo would bring in a credible development partner. No amount of hype (non-material) press releases from Leo is a substitute for the credibility of a co-development partner. Many big pharma's need clinical candidate drugs (like Amgen, for example). If the CTIX drugs are that valuable, the Amgens of the world should be beating down the CTIX door into the empty office space to negotiate a deal. Why hasn't this happened? That's the key question going forward.
Will not be responding, I think, in 2nd part of Aug as going mostly off the grid.
I think we can agree to disagree about Leo. gizmo. I work in this industry and cringe at the non-substantive hype. It destroys credibility, in my opinion. It's like the boy who keep crying "wolf." And when the wolf finally appears, is ignored. Am on jury duty today waiting to be called. This is boring.
This is cool. Picked up 10K yesterday at $1.75 to add to the collection. I doubt this is short covering as there's a bounce-back in the sector. Given that there's very little to invest in right now, I guess the hot money is not ready t concede the biotech bubble has burst.
But I've found that paying attention to shorts is a waste of time and energy. Shorts tend to do their homework and I doubt this move will shake their confidence or idiotic belief in the smear article that was published. Leo attracts that kind of low-life mud-slinging by his steady stream of non-substantive hype press releases. Remember, that has been my constant critical postings about Leo. He needs to go and competent management brought in. And we need a competent and independent Board. Nothing has changed.
Medical reasons? Study some more of the history of Nowinski and look at some of those "medical reasons." He was also fired from BMS for some of those same "medical reasons." Only when this company demonstrates it has distanced itself from the sleaze (i.e., very bad mojo) of Nowinski and the Blechs will I even consider investing, even though I prefer small biotechs that address infectious diseases.
As I've been posting in response to the seeking alpha hit piece, I do not think running to lawyers is the answer here. Law firms are a business, a service business. They exist to make profits for the partners. I thought the article lacked credibility when I first read it. Again, I'm no fan of Leo and have been critical of him for pushing out hype rather than substance. But that hack job was absurd.
As I posted, I knew Ginsberg professionally and have high respect for him. I was glad to see reference to him in today's response document. I suggest everyone click on the links and look at the patents. Nothing flashy but done properly (but geeze Paul, we were taught to put the summary section before the description of the figures).
However, legal action (defamation) against the authors/publishers of the article or their financial backers who paid to have it written may be difficult to prove damages or obtain payments for damages. Instead, I think we should simply take advantage of the current price and pay for more shares. I think the most effective legal action should be from the SEC and check who shorted the stock (those who benefitted from the article, even temporarily) and look to associate those folks with insider knowledge of the article. This should be pursued with plain vanilla insider trading because it was material non-public information and anyone trading with such knowledge should be prosecuted.
Your only path forward, if you choose to accept it, is a shareholder derivative action. What this means is that you explain the lawsuit, cause of action and evidence you've gathered to the Board of Directors and demand that the Board vote to authorize the company to pursue this cause of action. Since this is not an independent Board and just a bunch of inexperienced goons (alright some may be talented docs who do a good job treating their patients) they will take their cues from Leo. Remember I've complained about this Board in prior posts as lacking independence.
When the Board turns you down Fraz, you're free to hire counsel of your choice and pursue a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the name of the company. Now your problem is legal economics. Who pays for the representation to file the lawsuit? If you recover big bucks, where does that money go?
While I certainly love getting checks with two commas as much as the next person, I'm not sure, Fraz, this is an easy path to two-comma check-dom. Therefore, I'm out. Good luck with it.
Yes there are easier and more profitable ways to make money, such as patent infringement lawsuits. I wasn't proposing to waste my time on such a lawsuit, just suggesting it to Fraz. I have higher returns for my investment of time.
The term is defamation. But you need to think about it some more. Who or what was damaged? What evidence is there for such damages? The company took a valuation haircut. So what? The whole sector took it on the chin this week. How do you prove damages as a company? I think the better approach is that some of the individuals whose reputation was slandered can sue for defamation, because it was selective, out-of-context bits to try to create innuendo.
As for the company, the movement of the stock price meant that the article was "material" according to SEC guidelines. Therefore, the insiders who traded on knowledge of the existence of this hit piece prior to its release to the public through seeking alpha, should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading so long as the SEC subpoenas can show both (1) knowledge of the article before its publication and (2) some trading activity before its public release. In other words insider trading. It works both ways because it means trading on material, non-public information even if you're part of the hit piece team and not a company insider.
Readers here will know I've been critical of Leo on this board but was long. I remain long and haven't bought or sold. But if I wasn't tied up in other meetings and travelling, I would have bought and may still buy more. My opinions haven't changed after this article. I read it late yesterday and was #$%$ off about it. It was guilt by innuendo. As for the science part of the hit piece by consulting with a biomedical PhD (by the way, I'm a biomedical PhD from Penn and remain long the stock) it sounded like using old and early articles without considering the results or more recent clinical trials.
But what really got to me was at the end of the hit piece where it attacked two consultants as dishonest and bad people. I know one of them professionally, although I don't know if the Google street view pic was actually his house or not (nor do I care). Then there was a pic of a house near Boston of a scientist based on an old European patent application. Dis anyone else click the link to the front page of he patent application? I did and she was listed as one of several inventors (common situation) and did anyone read who the "applicant" was? In the world of Euro patents, it is the applicant that matters, not who are the inventors. The applicant was a Big Pharma Merck KGA (aka German Merck) that has a big R&D facility near Boston. Just those to personal attacks destroyed the credibility of the hit piece in my opinion.
Sorry for my being tied up and traveling and missing an opportunity to buy more at low prices. I may get this opportunity again. I also think the people associated with this journalistic trash should be (1) sued for defamation by the person I know and (2) investigated by the SEC/DoJ for insider trading and criminally prosecuted. Again, I remain highly critical of Leo by putting out stupid hype, but that hit piece was a new low.
The solution is to replace Leo and bring in an experienced pharma Board and management to rise above the stupid mud-slinging.
There is legislation before Congress (passes one chamber o far) that will be highly beneficial for CTIX and many other small pharmas. Folks, pay attention to yesterday's IPO of NK and the ecosystem of Nant companies. Although the ecosystem is cancer focused, it is showing that the regulatory burden getting drugs approved when there needs to be a more personalized approach, is out-of-date and better systems, including Big Data-based analyses are currently warranted. This is an area where I spend much of my time right now, not waiting for the next hyped-up drivel from Leo, playing to yesterday's audience.
I would not say "clearly warranted" with regard to this company. Moreover, an end of phase 2 meeting with the FDA does not mean betting the company on a phase 3 is clearly warranted." In fact, what's missing is an SPA (special protocol) agreement with the FDA wherein the FDA agrees that if certain primary endpoints are met, there will be approval. Instead there are primary and secondary endpoints and it remains to be seen if the data, even if touted and hyped by Leo, will prove to be sufficient to gain approval by the FDA. But what is in CTIX's favour is that the GAIN Act has liberalized approval standards for antibiotics, the reason why I invested in CTIX (and many other anti-infective companies) in the first place.
I am long. 25K shares. I'd go ball-to-the-wall like Lee if I had confidence in management. But I'll stick with this small position.