In Affy's case, absolutely. Nonetheless, Omontys adverse incidents were off the charts, especially "unexplained" deaths, compared to industry standards.
It appears to me that TKM-Ebola is more directed to a biological war where troops could be exposed at a known date and time so that TKM-E would be administered immediately upon the attack. Such a scenario would also explain why Tekmira is so silent about its therapy.
I agree that the sub Guidance may have been used by Spherix for forum shopping to the texas district court where it has a reputation for enforcing plaintiff claims of patent infringement.
I believe it is likely a win for Spex, but without access to both the complaint and counterclaim it is just an educated guess on my part. I have seen the complaints filed in the other patent suits filed by Spherix, but I have not seen this one filed by Guidance. I am wondering why Spherix used a subsidiary to file against ATT when it filed directly with itself as plaintiff against the other alleged infringing defendants. The complaint and counterclaim in the Guidance suit could answer those questions, and others.
Does anybody have a copy of ATTs counterclaim in the dismissed litigation? I am a retired lawyer with over 30 years litigation experience. I would like to know what the counterclaim alleged inasmuch as it has a bearing on the joint dismissal (which is probably due to a settlement). Dismissed with prejudice means that the claim cannot be brought again in any court. Dismissed without prejudice means that the claim can be filed again in a court having jurisdiction later if necessary.
I like Randy Kirk. Went to school with him. A brilliant guy. I also got in a long time ago. It is a long term hold, and I am up. Kirk has a reputation of selling his companies at a profit.
Could it be, maybe, that Omontys, is just bad medicine? The "inexplicable" results of the EMERALD/PEARL clinical trials resulted in the anomaly that O was statistically significantly more morbid/deadly compared to industry standard ESAs for the healthier CKD patients not on dialysis but was not inferior to industry standard ESAs for the sicker CKD patients who were on dialysis. Don't foreget that the EMA did not approve O for the European Union because O's benefits did not outweigh its risks and the clinical data Takeda submitted in support of O might not be reliable.
You are nothing buy sour grapes longfellowsss. If anybody wanted to conspire in this market it was you who hoped to organize a short squeeze. Go look in the mirror for the reason you lost your investment in AFFY.
I consistently told the truth about O and AFFY and my posts invariably got the most thumbs down of any on this board. Grey and I spoon fed all who could read about the horror story of O with cites and quotes, but the incessant longs, high on Maxdad weed and drinking EXP Kool-Aid, could read but not comprehend. I am sorry for them if they did not sell when they had the chance.
AFFY disclosed some time ago that neither AFFY nor Takeda are paying the fees necessary to keep the O patents current. Based on that disclosure and Takeda's write off of its $45.8M interest in O to $0, I believe AFFY's patents for O aren't worth hardly a plug nickel. And don't forget, whoever buys AFFY (instead of its assets) also gets AFFY's litigation exposure.
In its Sep 2013 annual report Takeda disclosed that it written down to zero value its entire interest in O. What does that tell you? It told me to stay short AFFY, and Takeda's write down of the full value of Omontys patent to zero confirmed that Takeda did not intend to reintroduce Omontys into any market. If any sales revenues whatsoever were ever expected, does it make sense for Takeda to write down the value of the O patent to $0?
At page 117 of its 2013 Annual Report, Takeda discloses as follows:
As a result of the significant decline in profitability of patent rights and sales rights, their respective book values were written down to recoverable amounts, and the decrease was recognized as impairment loss....
As described in the note of "Loss on voluntary recall of products," based on the decision to voluntarily recall a product at the Company's US subsidiary had sold, the Company recognized impairment loss on patent rights of Y4,294 million ($45,681 thousand) expected to have a recoverable amount of zero. This impairment loss is included in "Loss on voluntary recall of products."
Loss on voluntary recall of products
The Company decided to voluntarily recall a product that the Company's U.S. subsidiary had soled due to the unfavorable outcome from the post-marketing surveillance performed. The losses are impairment loss for patent rights associated with this voluntarily [sic] recall and other losses attributed to the Company and the U.S. subsidiary based on the arrangement with the in-licensing partner company.....
Had to say it. Their 4 successive AFFY pumps and dumps allowed me to get increase my AFFY short position. But I had to take a brow beating from them and this board to do it.
Once again, Greycorner and I have been proven correct. Grey, like me, always explained that Takeda and AFFY knew there was problem with O's safety, which, at core, is why O was never approved as an ESA for CKD patients generally, but paradoxically only for the "sicker" CKD dialysis patients. Time and time again I pointed out the "inexplicable" mortality/morbidity rates between the PEARL and EMERALD studies. There is still no answer, and AFFY's only avenue to evade the strict products liability claims is BK. But BK won't happen until Orwin and The Brenner Group have nothing remaining to pay themselves with.
Class action settled. Of course it did, AFFY is bankrupt except for the insurance policy proceeds. Any lawyer worth his salt understands that writing on the wall. Why waste time and money going after anything other than the insurance policy. If AFFY had any other assets the class action would not have settled. IMHO after having practice law for over 30 years. Looks like the products liability litigation will be the stake in the AFFY heart leading to BK. The Honorable Orwin-san and others, including The Brenner Group, apparently still have some cash left so they can keep paying themselves in their sinecure. I am not ashamed. I warned everyone time and again and was only castigated for speaking the truth.
The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission cleared biopharmaceuticals company CytRx Corp. Friday from a preliminary conflict of interest inquiry regarding a consultant's simultaneous work for the company and a Massachusetts university.
The consultant, Ruvane E. "Rip" Grossman, has been fined $10,000 by the commission for bringing the University of Massachusetts Medical School and Los Angeles-based CytRx (NASDAQ: CYTR) together to discuss marketing a potential new drug therapy. He also took part in negotiations of a licensing agreement between both parties.
But at the same time, Grossman had a consulting contract with both sides.