Recent

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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

justarook04 581 posts  |  Last Activity: 12 hours ago Member since: Apr 13, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Now over $2.50 recovery

    by justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 10:20 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 10:39 AM Flag

    Kei - I did but maybe think of selling 1/2 if you make over $3/shr (unless this is long term) This market is unreliable and those shorts are just attacking this stock. If the market ever goes GREEN, then we get back to $25 (so who the heck knows)?

  • Reply to

    Now over $2.50 recovery

    by justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 10:20 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 10:31 AM Flag

    Now over $3 recovery maybe headed for $3.50 recovery - this is insane (agree with it being a trader's market but still the shorts OWN the market).

  • justarook04 by justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 10:20 AM Flag

    But the market is still deep RED. Maybe we see $23 again? Unbelivable

  • justarook04 by justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 9:54 AM Flag

    But who knows what comes next. Market is set up for the dark side people (shorts). Those hoping for failure or negative news. Kind of sick but true.

  • Reply to

    Favus Research issues negative report on RLYP

    by jimmymac3244 Jan 7, 2016 8:45 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 9:50 AM Flag

    "Elliot Favus had a new bearish report on Relypsa (NASDAQ: RLYP) this morning, according to theStreet's Adam Feuerstein. However, Feuerstein said the bearish thesis echoed that of Morgan Stanley's Andy Berens and he sees "nothing new" in the report.

    $RLYP - Favus’ bear thesis for Veltassa echoes what you’ve already read from Andy Berens. I read nothing new in this morning’s report."

  • Reply to

    Favus Research issues negative report on RLYP

    by jimmymac3244 Jan 7, 2016 8:45 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 9:47 AM Flag

    Orbimed still owns 7.4M shares? right?

  • Reply to

    Favus Research issues negative report on RLYP

    by jimmymac3244 Jan 7, 2016 8:45 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 8:52 AM Flag

    from WCM twitter:
    "$RLYP - Favus’ bear thesis for Veltassa echoes what you’ve already read from Andy Berens. I read nothing new in this morning’s report."

    Morgan Stanley attacking again - slime.

  • Reply to

    Favus Research issues negative report on RLYP

    by jimmymac3244 Jan 7, 2016 8:45 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 8:50 AM Flag

    link? Fly has it but no link. What could it say? Who do they work for?

  • justarook04 justarook04 Jan 7, 2016 8:43 AM Flag

    Lurker - HA - I have a stock (CNAT) that reported positive PH II results on its liver drug 1/5 AH. It opened and shot to $4.05 early on and closed at $2.88 UP .01 yesterday. This is an example of how the market really feels about even GOOD news lately. Relypsa has so many positives and has sales occurring but is being treated like it just reported on a PH II trial (w/o an approved drug/sales). So, one has to decide to bail and hold its cash or weather the storm(s). The FED blew it big time by thinking our economy is moving forward. They need to comment on NO MORE rate hikes until this FRICKIN' market get real. One last thing, I commented on the ZS05 trial changes a few days ago (no longer monitored by a DMC) but not sure you read It. It sure "smells" like the 2 observatory ZS9 trials are the
    make or break" for the May 26th PDUFA (AZ has no be REAL concerned here). GLTA

  • Reply to

    CTO

    by justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 11:55 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 3:34 PM Flag

    Looks like ZS Pharma had each suitor sign confidentiality agreements (via Goldman Sachs?) before sharing any confidential data which I find interesting. But since they came forward at different times, maybe the right course.

  • Reply to

    CTO

    by justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 11:55 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 3:27 PM Flag

    I can't find what I "grabbed" so i am sure you are correct Shinbinc. But from the 14d filing (odd that there was no CTO??) it stated all this actually began in August18th (and private data was shared accordingly):

    "During the summer of 2015, Dr. Alexander was contacted by an investment banker who suggested that a publicly traded pharmaceutical company referred to in this Schedule 14D-9 as “Party A” was potentially interested in engaging in a strategic transaction with the Company. At that time, the Company decided to engage in discussions with Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“Goldman Sachs”) about acting as the Company’s financial advisor. On August 13, 2015, Party A contacted Dr. Alexander to schedule a call, which occurred on August 17, 2015. During the August 17, 2015 call, Party A informed Dr. Alexander that Party A would be submitting an unsolicited proposal to the Company in the next few days.

    On August 18, 2015, the Company received a non-public, unsolicited, written, non-binding proposal from Party A to acquire the Company for $85.00 in cash per Share subject to the completion of due diligence and other customary conditions. The proposal was not subject to any financing condition. The closing price of the Shares on that day was $53.68 per Share.

    On August 18, 2015, the Board held a telephonic meeting, with members of management and representatives of Goldman Sachs and Simpson Thacher participating, to update the Board on the written proposal received from Party A. The Board determined to schedule a meeting for the following week on August 27, 2015 to further discuss potential strategic alternatives for the Company, including the proposal from Party A. The Board noted that it had previously scheduled a review of the Company’s financials with management for a September 15, 2015 meeting, and asked management to accelerate that review to take place at the August 27, 2015 meeting. The Board also asked that Goldman Sachs provide its preliminary financial analysis" etc

  • Reply to

    CTO

    by justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 11:55 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 3:07 PM Flag

    About 45 days if my math is correct. 9/23 - 11/6(?). The question is did ZS Pharma file their CTO in "haste" to get matters moving OR did Relypsa file theirs today because it is "auction" time with a few bidders? nobody really knows with relypsa. But this CTO had to include new data that has occurred (updates) since the last 10-Q November 4th.

  • Reply to

    Insider sale reported on Seekin Alpha

    by takelma02 Jan 6, 2016 2:50 PM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 2:53 PM Flag

    From December 31st and was a planned sale per filings - OLD news

  • Reply to

    RLYP is under performing

    by learnigisdkey Jan 6, 2016 2:31 PM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 2:42 PM Flag

    Unfortunately many BIOS and especially small caps are being ravaged by this market and it has been happening almost every day since last Wednesday. Today is worse (reminds me of late September). Who knows what the reason is and WHY this happens or is even allowed? What has changed with Relypsa in the last 2 weeks? No news and mostly BAU. No articles ANYwhere that show issues or concerns. Actually, ZS9 (AZ) is looking to be in bigger trouble with its 2 observatory trials demanded by the FDA for safety etc. concerns. GL to U 2

  • justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 1:52 PM Flag

    Yahoo will not let me post the new ZS Pharma clinical (Observatory) trial started in September 2015

    trial number NCT02609841

  • justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 12:31 PM Flag

    kei - one would think (logically which the market is not) that the need for new revenue in an Untapped market that has potential (I said potential OK) revenue of $3B-$5B annually in the next 3-5 years (and its drug is already approved and selling) would draw the BP FLIES. Most other stocks are in Phase II or Phase III with no assurance of success in their trials let alone approval. If Lurker is right and ZS-9 will have difficulties in May (or before) satisfying the FDA, Veltassa may be the only game in town for quite awhile. Who knows???

  • Reply to

    Relypsa - CT filed today

    by stock_lurker Jan 6, 2016 12:10 PM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 12:16 PM Flag

    ZS Pharma filed CTO on September 23rd, 2015 FYI

    "CONFIDENTIALITY

    In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree to hold in strict confidence and not disclose or transfer, directly or indirectly, Confidential Information of the other Party to any third party without the express written permission of the Disclosing Party. In addition neither Party will disclose to any third party the fact that the Confidential Information has been provided to the other Party or that discussions are taking place between the Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing or Section 3, the Receiving Party shall not be prevented from disclosing or using Confidential Information or the terms and conditions of this Agreement, if such Confidential Information or such other information:

    (i) is approved in writing by the Disclosing Party for release or use by the Receiving Party without restriction, but only from the time such Confidential Information is approved for release and thereafter;

    (ii) is available to the public at the time of disclosure to the Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain through no wrongful act of the Receiving Party in violation of this Agreement, but only from the time such Confidential Information becomes available to the public or otherwise part of the public domain and thereafter;

    (iii) is in the Receiving Party’s possession at the time of disclosure, as the Receiving Party can by competent proof demonstrate, other than as a result of any prior confidential disclosure by Disclosing Party;

    (iv) was disclosed to the Receiving Party by a third party who, to the knowledge of the Receiving Party, had no duty of confidentiality to the Disclosing Party with respect to such Confidential Information and had the legal right to disclose such Confidential Information, but only from the time such Confidential Information was so rightfully disclosed and thereafter;" etc.



    (v) is indep

  • justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 12:07 PM Flag

    Are you sure it is not another company and Relypsa is blanking out Sanofi agreement because it is "contractual"? Also, Sanofi is on the ground floor with sales and physician reaction, they would know more than any other company (my opinion). For sake of ARGUEMENT here, the value of Relypsa is based on potential sales/revenue, approval of drug and cash on hand (though minor) and debt (another reason for CTO(?). We shall see as the market YAWNS

  • justarook04 by justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 11:55 AM Flag

    Yep "Relypsa, Inc. submitted an application under Rule 24b-2 requesting confidential treatment for information it excluded from the Exhibits to a Form 10-Q filed on November 4, 2015.
    Based on representations by Relypsa, Inc. that this information qualifies as confidential commercial or financial information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), the Division of Corporation Finance has determined not to publicly disclose it. Accordingly, excluded information from the following exhibit(s) will not be released to the public for the time period(s) specified:"
    Exhibit 10.1 through May 3, 2019
    Exhibit 10.2 through February 2, 2020

    usually this is done to keep "confidential" ANY information requested by the SEC or another interested party.

  • Reply to

    RLYP - i wouldn't place stops

    by kei.trader Jan 6, 2016 8:06 AM
    justarook04 justarook04 Jan 6, 2016 9:22 AM Flag

    posted the site dude, below - the email is nothing out of the ordinary

INSM
12.78-0.60(-4.48%)Feb 5 4:00 PMEST