ORAL ORDER: The parties should meet and confer and should submit a status report by NLT May 3, 2016, on the issues raised regarding possible launch. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/27/2016.
glmcom/ragbul took a loss this morning on 293 shares apparently. That means 30 days of negative posts and advice till the next losing trade.
So you bought right at the peak in 2011, lol. You can't blame the CEO for doing that. Take a look in a mirror and blame that person.
glmcom /biota / vra you made the same crack about the CEO that he should stay in the lab, you don't have a clue. How many times have I seen a new CEO come in and first they pay a huge salary and then double spending to prove they knows how things works. Then the stock crashes. The new hires they have here are proven people that have been in companies that have done acquisitions and partnerships successfully. it is OK if you want to cry about this company, but can't you do it privately where we don't have to read it. You should be crying over ETRM and you lost 99.5% of your money, and IGXT at worst has been flat. if IGXT stock hit $3 you would still be crying like a baby about the CEO. Get rid of the diapers.
Anyone notice how all the negative posts come in at the same time? vra is biota and glmcom.
One of the Par drugs they got back I think he said would be filed at the end of this year so their could be a milestone payment for that too. Also since that one is nearly developed it is more valuable and would command more than the initial signing.
I found this back while the trial was happening. It looks like they have good lawyers-
Judge Andrews, in the District of Delaware, was recently asked to exclude evidence of infringement based on the ‘doctrine of equivalents’ in Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Watson Laboratories Inc., et al., 1-13-cv-01674-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 13, 2015). According to the briefing, the evidentiary issue appears to have been that plaintiff’s expert failed to sufficiently raise and address infringement of one of the asserted patents under the doctrine of equivalents in their expert’s opening report. Judge Andrews granted the motion, and so this evidence was excluded from the bench trial before him this week. While this is not the first time Judge Andrews has excluded expert evidence that was not timely disclosed through an opening expert report, it does appear to be the first such exclusion in an ANDA case.
This is what they said on the CC-
"Yes, the immediate answer to your question is a very quick one. We have developed a partnership strategy and that we have put together a document that explains the development status and the advantages that our film product has compared to other products that might be out there in the market and we have engaged, I think it's fair to say, the leading marketing firm in and partnering firm in the U.S. to help us find a partner for this program. Now, we believe that we have a significant advantage with our film product over potential generic competitors. "
So they have an outside marketing firm on that and this agreement may be for this product and 2 others.
I am surprised at how many negative posts there are here, the pieces are being put in place to get this to be a very profitable company and become a nice takeout target. Yes it has taken a long time to get to that but they are very close to pulling it off.
All of the people he recently added have shown an ability to grow a company, that is why the stock is up. They are planning on more products with the manufacturing plant.
From what I see they have 6 more to be approved and 4 of those are close to a billion in sales each. The other two are about a half billion. That's about 5 billion in total sales for what's left. This will be a $25 stock or more.
What is interesting is this is one of the later submissions they did, and this was approved. So all of the others before this must be close as well.