begz: I saw a 2004 study by some large UK hospital that compared steroids, viGABatrin and Synacthen in IS. There seemed little to choose (from my totally-layman perspective) in the results. Brit docs LOVE giving steroids! My English cousin (retired NHS doc) has some fascinating material comparing Synacthen and ACTH (not Acthar, of course) in his practice, that I mean to write up here on a dull day. He told me ACTH became hard to obtain in the UK after about 1988, and was little used there ever since. He also told me he found ACTH to be noticeably more effective than tetracosactrin (synthetic ACTH) in his particular practice.
Re. your 2nd para: according to the 8K filing in June, the License Agreement spells out the timing of Q's obligations, but there are 2 references to "two years" as a watershed period.
"Novartis has the right to terminate the License under certain circumstances, including if Questcor fails within time periods set forth in the License Agreement to achieve certain development milestones related to (i) conducting a pre-IND meeting with the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) with respect to the Product, (ii) commencing a clinical trial with respect to the Product and (iii) submitting an NDA for the Product for filing with the FDA. "
For non-US countries, Novartis can "recover the assets...if Purchaser fails to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for such country or fails to make the Product available in such country" (within two years).
Sorry, I put this together from rough notes have been writing in the past few weeks: SA = Synacthen. Again, apologies for being unclear...
I would point out that although it may APPEAR as if Q is doing something nefarious by:
. arrogating to itself the right and duty – FINALLY – to try to bring SA to market in the US
. denying some other company (like poor Cerium and Retrophin) the opportunity
that is absolutely NOT the case! How so?
ACTH was synthesized back in the 60s. Although touted as a treatment for autoimmune illnesses, in fact the world outside the US has substantially REJECTED it.
. Novartis failed to sell much of it, tried to get rid of it (as early as 2002) and FAILED TO
. Sales are close to nothing, except as a diagnostic tool (neither Novartis’ 2012 Annual General Report, nor its current 20-F, even mentions SA, so there is no obviously no breakout of revenues therefrom)
. Did the big drug companies of the world, including the US giants make any effort to approach Novartis, either before or (even) AFTER seeing what a huge success of ACTH Q is making? NO!
. Does the agitation of totally under-capitalized organizations mounted by Q short-sellers amount to a genuine attempt to bring SA to the US patient? NO!
. Will the best possible attempt to do that latter come from the very company who has A? YES!! Why? Because if Competitor-Company X has SA and Q has A, then the neutral double-blind clinical studies will NEVER be done, there will ALWAYS be ONLY a pizzing contest., never any clear-cut evidence.
Although the foregoing may seem elementary, this needs to be stated loud and clear, because the FTC consists of bureaucrats, not businessmen!
Haha, now you put "I Am The Walrus" on my mind! (Too old for you whippersnappers, I know - google it).
No, I don't. Left's native language is clearly English, no matter whatever else you lay at his door. Such is clearly not the case with the poster you cite.
Others already said this here, but not as clearly as I'm going to. I think this deserves wider dissemination than it seems to have received so far (though apologies for posting so late, what a day I picked to struggle with tire chains on our snowy roads!)
Top of p.4 of his pathetic little document, Left quotes Pharmaman58's October post on SA, about NORD and the $360m, and about the CDF contributions of approx $3.1m, noted in the June 30th 10Q. Left then asserts that pharmaman is either prescient of the October 10Q, or in some kind of nefarious insider contact with Questcor.
Please, everyone, look at p.12 of the June 30th 10Q, and then p.31 of same document, and you will see the basis for pharmaman's post on SA. Again, pharmaman has absolutely NOTHING TO ANSWER here.
My conclusion: this Left is either delusional, dishonest or can't use a search function - or all of the above. None of these characteristics is a qualification for investment research.
In any case - so WHAT if it had all been true about Pman. Just HOW does this help the short case against QCOR?? Left seems to have lost all sense of JUDGEMENT not just contextual accuracy. Same analysis applies to the nonsense about the Synacthen'ACTH (SEPARATE) studies quoted in the first part of the "report", as others already showed here. Bah, the man must have failed HS reading comprehension.
whogo: couldn't quite "locate" your post. The first half read as if you were going to state a bear-case, because there's no niche for O. Then, after "I'm looking at the market in the wrong way", you cited at least 2 bullish numbered bullets. This seemed to encapsulate your changes of sentiment into one post.
Regarding the substantives: what existing SQ market in USA? As you well know, the bull case for O is that it will draw patients both from orals and biologics. Some docs may go straight to O without even bothering with oral. Many will delay or never need biologics now.
The estimates of rev and EPS to ATRS were already made by types like Smith, Ali, newbie. What have we to add? The Aug '14 cc should be the one that really drives the PPS up, as investors see that O is being accepted.
I cannot understand the collapse in confidence that attended the FDA approval, since nothing seems to have changed about the marketability of O. I think a big fund sold out for its own reasons, and in a thin market caused most of the fall. Then everyone went into psychoanalysis about it all.
Sit Long (at least) a year, should see almost a double. If the May cc sounds like they're selling nothing and have no hope with O (fat chance), then get out before it goes much below 4.
What I'd more like to know is whether Q intends to take legal action about the "other story to follow within weeks [where] we will explain why we believe the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York is involved and why we believe Questcor management will be doing “perp walks” – yes criminal", assuming the new story is libelous. I don't think Q can/should just let that pass. Even if this little Left cretin has somewhat lost his mojo, he still got us down from around 61 to around 56, on minuscule substance.
Must confess am also curious what happened to your "investigation over" rumor. Not that I was expecting anything, but what have you to say, fmm?
To saram and johnny: twice tried to post what max means, and am on 2 strikes. Sometimes YMB is a real bear about this, other times it flies through - so strange.
kom. [except the k is a c, of course. Lose the spaces.]
Yep, and the link in their "HERE" gets the same 404 Not Found as the link on citronresearch's own site. Anyone actually read the darn piece?
Fess up now, II: aren't you shocked it didn't go to 40, only 55? I do get that you have your contacts. You knew we were going to take a Left turn, eh? I mean REALLY knew (as in: one of the gang) not just suspected like us sheeps?
Incidentally, I submit that this is what it has ALL been about. The persistent selling pressure since even before earnings. That Left turd and his buddies front-running this FTC "revelation".
In fact, I can imagine one bunch of shorts lobbying the USAO, pre-earnings, for the SEC to get involved. When that happened, it must have really p*ssed Left off, because he didn't get to short really high. Ever since then, he's been trying to dribble up to a decent short position before letting the article fly. And he only got 55, and not II's 40.
I guess it's a kind of triumph for us longs, but it's shore tea-jus.
To be fair, I was also bleating about the FTC on this YMB, last June, but pharma, max and mikey all ixnayed the idea. Hope it amounts to nothing, although a long hangover while FTC investigation proceeds will NOT be fun.
Thanks bb, Unfortunately the moron's link to his own article (/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Questcor-and-the-FTC-finalDOTpdf ) is not working. Can only see the lead-in blurb on the header page.
II: glad to be on any list of yours! Strange you misspell my ID exactly as mikey did, and use same term as he did ("sheeple").
I say, I say, you wouldn't, by any chance, be mikey's shorter brother, would you?
Just for the record, I too wouldn't be surprised if it plumbed the low 50s again, before heading up (maybe profit-taking of funds for year-end, maybe another scare story, eg. FTC) - but I'd really be shocked if it got back into the 40s! Good God, I might have to go back on margin then.
Even so, I'm holding long for the fundamentals, and not trying to guess what nonsense the shorts will come up with next. The next cc or two should see it up close to 90. I can wait, because I sold a lot of my other stuff that made reasonable money this year.
Even funnier, he came back a few weeks after that, in Long pants, and denied he'd ever worn Shorts, or said any mean things. Had to be shown that very post you just resuscitated from the dustbin of history.
Still, there's one corresponding thing you gotta like about ii: at least he tells it straight, and makes a prediction. Doesn't come around after the dust has cleared, and claim he knew all along, like...