Mon, Mar 2, 2015, 7:27 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 3 mins


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

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Message Board

guppi00 4 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 21, 2015 12:45 PM Member since: Mar 10, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • guppi00 guppi00 Jan 21, 2015 12:45 PM Flag

    I agree - difficult case. How do you "prove" that you could have sold 1M shares at $5? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have the answer. But I'm certain they will try and I think they have a chance since I believe the court or a jury would agree there were damages. To me, it doesn't matter when they were selling but rather for how much they could/should have sold for. Lytle selling all the way through shows consistency - good or bad. If he stops and sells into a spike, shareholders cry foul that management is working against them. They are consistent? That argument becomes invalid.

    I believe they will settle since this is often the case. I'd really like to know more about the details though. How did they know only 25% of each arm were affected? I'm not well versed on the sabotage theory. Seems like a very small portion of the vials to sabotage though. What I see as promising is that results were good, no matter which way you look at it. So Phase III results should be, too.

    I came in not long after the drop looking for a bounce. Started to learn more as time went on and just stuck around, jumping in and out a couple times. It is frustrating, I think all longs would agree, but that's part of the game. I can understand the issue people have that lost money - but part of that comes back to how this was all figured out in the first place and that's what I'm interested in. If we knew that, blame could be placed in the right spot. I think that since CSM is pushing for LOD (as they should) rather than saying "we didn't do anything wrong" shows they know they are on the hook for something.

  • guppi00 guppi00 Jan 21, 2015 10:26 AM Flag

    I would argue that the market cap discussion and shareholder losses shouldn't have been included in this document - so by pointing out that they aren't there, it's misleading. You'd make a good lawyer.

    This document's purpose was to determine when and where the LOD clause applies. CSM was looking for a judgement here to know how much trouble they are really in - hoping it was only $600k. They now know their liability is AT LEAST $600k. I say this because it was capped at $600k for 3 out of 6 of the causes of action. It's not capped (within the document) for the other 3.

    Peregrine needs to now prove damages and quantify them. Although it sucks that they have been selling ATM shares, I expect them to (at least attempt to) use this as proof of damages. They can now say "we sold 1,000,000 shares at $1.50, when we could have been selling at $5, so our damages are $%.00-$1.50) x 1,000,000" -- because they've actually realized "damages" as a result of the fraud. As a shareholder myself, I'm interested in how this will all play out - in the mean time, I'll be selling covered calls out of the money to make some return until things take off - either due to this settlement, PIII, partner, or whatever.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • guppi00 guppi00 Jan 20, 2015 5:06 PM Flag

    Fascinating read, indeed.

    Based on my understanding, CSM was able to limit their exposure under three of the causes of action - to the amount Peregrine paid based on the LOD (limitation of damages) clause. So it sounds like the $600,000 paid to CSM has a decent shot at being returned to Peregrine. Win for CSM, unfortunately. Peregrine's argument was thin, but that's what lawyers get paid to do - argue for whatever small chance you have and hope the other guy does less homework.

    Under the other three causes of action - CSM was unable to limit their exposure. Partially due to what you mention regarding Paragraph 16.A - a "smart" move yes, but rather elementary. If Peregrine's lawyers hadn't found this language I would be scared - CSM should have replaced it with better wording when it was taken out. Someone got lazy at CSM. This is where Peregrine opens itself up to collecting damages which are not limited to what was in the agreement. Now they get to argue the dollar figure that is attached to the word "Fraud".

    What's more interesting to me than anything else is on Page 12 - where it states that "Peregrine contends that the mislabeling implicated up to 25 percent of the placebo-labeled doses and up to 25 percent of the 1 mg/kg" - which seems kinda makes me think the results they posted weren't all that off if only a small subset of patients were impacted. And certainly not the combined results, which still were favorable. Then again, I don't have all the details to run the stats myself.

  • Reply to


    by poonyieta Dec 1, 2014 3:43 PM
    guppi00 guppi00 Dec 2, 2014 12:04 PM Flag

    How is that working out for you today?

    Normally I'm not a troll -- but this was just too good to pass up :)

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

1.41+0.03(+2.17%)Feb 27 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.