They paid $.15 for what was effectively 1/10 of a regular share.
Off to "iggy land" for you.
I think that a note to Farrell with some "pointy" questions might be appropriate.
I'll see what I can do over the next day or so.
Somebody brought this up elsewhere earlier but it seems as though few noticed.
How many people know that she is currently the CDER Director of Regulatory Policy, and as such, is pretty close to being a direct defendant? (Search the position title to find the holy GRAIL.
She's also responsible for drafting responses to Citizen Petitions.
Somehow, I just cannot see that they could not have had some sort of “dinner or pillow talk” about this case.
Or another interpretation... the company calls the shots and provided the share price is over $2.86, dictates that the debt will be converted to equity at a price in effect on the day. Theoretically very high, which would result in very little dilution.
Or... would the transaction be based on the average for the 20/30 days that the share price was in excess of $2.86?
Lets say that you are a note holder picking up 3.5% interest...
If prospects really start to look good, would you rather have 3.5% interest or the ability to acquire shares at $2.86, especially when they may have already been at a price in excess of that amount (if they were at and going to stay at say $7 who would not want this deal) or you are pretty sure that before long they will be well in excess of the amount?
Can shorts "engineer" a way out if they know what the share price is going to be at a point in time?
It relates to language in one of the revised agreements with note holders, as below (from May 15, 2014 PR).
"Holders of the 2014 Notes will have the option to require the Issuer to purchase any outstanding 2014 Notes on each of January 19, 2019, January 19, 2024 and January 19, 2029 at a purchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon. The Issuer will have the right to redeem the 2014 Notes on or after January 19, 2018 at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued but unpaid interest thereon. The 2014 Notes will also provide the Issuer with the option to exchange the 2014 Notes in whole or in part, prior to maturity, into the underlying ADSs, provided the trading price of one ADS of Amarin equals or exceeds $2.86 (or 110% of the then applicable exchange price) for the required measurement period. If the Issuer exercises the exchange option on or before January 15, 2018, in certain circumstances, the applicable exchange rate will be increased in accordance with a make-whole table included in the indenture that will govern the 2014 Notes. In addition, the exchange rate will be increased in certain circumstances for exchanges in connection with certain fundamental changes in accordance with the same make-whole table."
Is it going to result in dilution?
If/when it happens, is it going to drop the share price?
Does it provide an unfair advantage to some?
I can't see Y having staff dedicated to reviewing content and I think that "robots would have to be pretty sensitive to pick up on such things.
It would seem as though somebody has some influence with this MB. I can indeed see the company scanning and monitoring but to have the phone number or email address or contact to have a message deleted is "interesting".
IF the above is the case, it makes one wonder why it's not possible to request that IP addresses be traced back to some of our "friends".
Perhaps no coincidence that it has closed "stuck" at the price ($2.86) that triggered the option of the "Pharmakon" debt holders to convert to equity (with another ~ 40 million shares of dilution about to happen)?
Trying to put a good spin:
Maybe we soon conclusively get back "ownership of the IP/patents etc, which alone should be good for a bump in the value of the company and share price?
Maybe other good things will happen in the next few days or so that will mute the impact of the dilution a la Baker Brothers ?
We MIGHT be stuck here for awhile until there is some clarity/?
I don't think that the Irish aspect is one of the major forces. There are many at play but two that may have been big (in my opinion) where:
The disruptive shock of Amarin (primarily epa/triglycerides vs statin establishment and patent cliffs)
That one company might have a market "monopoly" involving something that has "characteristics" of a natural substance.
However, it's too easy to speculate...
Could be a decision on NCE case on Tuesday.
Other pending/likely/expected upgrades and target price increases will be self-perpetuating, especially with the prospect of $5 which will allow other serious investors to trade.
The unknown impact of Hamburg's resignation. Maybe today was her last:-) and the fda is now "under new management" that will permit face saving changes to prior policies or decisions.
Based on a "quick and dirty" review of the meeting, it would appear, to my great disappointment, that the SPA issue was never addressed. There were only five members of Congress asking questions and only four after a while, and three who were "awake".
Either a) there is/was some "private" forum to address the issue, and something might be happening, b) Congress does not care (with all of the other problems ongoing at present) or is waiting for a more detailed explanation c) the issue is too technical for Congress to challenge the FDA or d) the issue is too delicate and embarrassing for many people.
Anybody else have other views or comments?
March 11, 2015
FOR THE ATTTENTION OF:
Members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Dear Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member Farr et al:
Re: Review of FDA’s Rescission of Amarin Corporation’s Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) Agreement: Additional Information of Potential Relevance
EPADI has been vigilant in its analysis of correspondence and evidence related to the manner in which the FDA has managed the review and adjudication of the overall file for Amarin Corp’s drug, Vascepa. In this regard, we wish to highlight an additional matter that may be worthy of the Subcommittee’s attention. The issue was initially introduced in our draft Briefing Paper of February 3. We apologize for the lateness of this submission.
Attached to this note, please find a document dated February 6, 2014 entitled “Exclusivity Recommendation for Vascepa (NDA 202057)” in which the Exclusivity Board of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) outlines its arguments for not awarding New Chemical Entity (NCE) status to Vascepa.
While various technical and scientific aspects of this issue are now being argued before the courts, as Amarin has sued the FDA, a comment found on pages 1 to 2 of the document is disconcerting:
“Currently, eight abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) have been submitted and are awaiting a final decision. If FDA concludes that Vascepa has 3-year exclusivity, the Agency can begin receiving any pending ANDAs that are otherwise sufficiently complete to permit a substantial review. If FDA concludes that Vascepa has 5-year NCE exclusivity, the Agency must refuse to receive the ANDAs until at least 4 years from the date of the initial Vascepa approval.
Discussion and Questions
The initial approval of Vascepa was July of 2012. The unusual manner in which the FDA has handled this file (Advisory Committee meeting, SPA recession, NCE decision delay and subsequent retroactive and inconsistent application of draft/unapproved guidelines to justify 3-year exclusivity, as well as requiring the expensive REDUCE-IT outcomes study) has compromised and distracted Amarin severely in many ways.
It is now a mere five months away from when the benefits of the 3-year exclusivity will expire. On July 27, 2015, the FDA can begin to review ANDAs from other generic manufacturers. Given the potentially disruptive nature of Amarin and Vascepa to the business models of more established pharmaceutical companies (because of their own pipeline patent cliffs and the growing evidence of the benefits of Vascepa in treating cardiovascular disease, as well as indications such as dermatological and psychiatric, among others) it is not unrealistic to conclude that many would not want a small foreign (Irish) organization to succeed and have intellectual property control over what some might consider to be a synthesized natural substance.
It is considered possible that the interim results of the REDUCE-IT study (which will cost Amarin over $100 million) may be strong enough to stop the clinical trial toward the end of 2015 or in early 2016. This will be at a time when many of the companies that have filed ANDAs will be “up and running” with their drugs and may be able to “slide in” and benefit greatly - and at no expense or risk - from Amarin’s efforts.
Based upon the totality of the above (with the SPA rescission being but one “tactic or tool” employed by the FDA) we do not believe it unreasonable for the Subcommittee to pose the following questions to senior FDA management:
• Has the Agency treated Amarin unfairly or differently compared to other organizations?
• Has the treatment accorded to Amarin been with the intention of delaying the company and reducing or defusing the disruption that might have occurred (if the FDA would have adhered to understandings and exclusivity policies in existence at the time that the SPA was negotiated)?
Thank you for your sage and open consideration of the above during a time that seems especially difficult for all Americans and citizens of planet Earth.