Most CEOs, CFOs, CMOs of these high risk microcaps don't buy any of their own stock. They award themselves to death with shares in the hopes of a big payday. So when a CMO or any other exec throws their own money at their company, their intent is not to throw good money after bad.
I give you a thumb up for originality.
He purchased lots of 5,000 and 4,500 shares at price of $1.29 and $1.28 respectively. This is 3.8 times the number of shares (2,500) he purchased in August.
"NSS+" will probably qualify as a drug. Harvard Apparatus Regenerative Technology has a combination scaffold plus bone marrow stem cells product that is intended to address a patient's trachea that has been severely damaged by cancer or physical trauma.
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted orphan drug status to the Company’s HART-Trachea product, which is intended to replace or repair a trachea that has been severely damaged by either physical trauma or cancer." 9-5-14.
Something does seem wrong. $3 price held for long enough period and according to the last 10-Q, the company has Audit, Compensation and Nomination Committees. So it is probably some other issue. The last time I ran into a failed uplist, a company had a corporate governance issue. The company released an 8-K stating so. That was the right thing to do. The "issue" was cleared and it is now trading on the Nasdaq. Here we have dead silence.
Yes, This is a coincidence. I don't invest in developmental biotech companies unless I have a good feel for what their potential pipeline is worth.
According to the National Cancer Institute:
1. About 5 to 10 people per 100,000 have esophageal cancer. Approximately 15,850 - 31,700 patients per year.
2. It is estimated that $1.6 billion will be spent on esophageal cancer care in the United States in 2014.
3. Surgery is the most beneficial form of treatment when the cancer has not spread to other parts of the body.
They need more sites and they need them in locations that are known to have high rates of motor vehicle accidents. Nationally, DC/Baltimore are at the top of the list, yet neither University of Maryland or Johns Hopkins are on the list.
You are comparing a study that involves chronic patients and a study that involves acute patients. What do you think will happen when Invivo starts the chronic trial? Invoivo's current study depends on some one healthy becoming paralyzed--not already paralyzed.
I got in ONVO about 3 months after they started trading. Once I realized that Pfizer wouldn't renew its contract with Organovo in May of 2013, I sold out even though ONVO was on a roll. I also figured United Therapeutics would do the same and it has. The question is why isn't big pharma buying into these ONVO's essays? Looking at revenues, they basically are no better than what they were when I sold out. But the main reason--printing a liver, etc is a decade or 2 away if ever. I've moved on to company's like HART (trachea, esophagus, heart valve, lung) and NVIV (spinal cord). Not saying they will work, but their first products, HART Trachea and NVIV spinal cord tissue, should be proven or disapproven within the next year 2 to 3 years.
The study is on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02339233?term=Harkema&rank=2. There isn't any commercial company associated with the study and the study won't be completed until jan 2020. Lastly, NVIV is well aware of this and states it wants to BE the SCI COMPANY. I would think they would license the technology if it adds value.
According to the article some have gotten sexual function as well as B&B. This is good; however, my expectation is that scaffold+cells will exceed scaffold alone and that doctors will use the least invasive procedure to treat SCI patients. I'm not a seller because of this. For whatever reasons, the University of Louisville has been much more effective in getting its story out than NVIV. I've seen the story on CBS news sometime last year. UL is just better at messaging IMO. But that isn't as important as a potential product that will be going through a pivotal trial next year.
These developmental biotech companies trade on news. As news fades so does the price. The key is getting institutional investors invested in the company--which means uplisting. No ifs ands or buts. More of them involved more shares get "locked" up if news stays relatively positive.
I've been through this BCLI, NVIV, ONVO (don't buy it), and one or two others. It may take up to 4 weeks before we hear anything. But if they have all their ducks in row like BCLI and NVIV did, about 2 weeks. BCLI and NVIV did a reverse splits and were up on the NASDAQ Capital Markets in a about 2 weeks. I would think we should have the same result here.
July 8th - "Cellceutix last week learned that the application remains pending due to the price of CTIX stock currently below the minimum requirement."
I believe they need to meet the minimum $3 closing price for 5 business days requirement for the Nasdaq Capital Market. But to qualify under that criteria, CTIX needs to have "net tangible assets of $5 million." From what I can tell they have the $5 mill and will have the 5th $3 closing by end of day. Net Tangible Assets is another way of saying Book Value. Reference Nasdaq's Initial Listing Guide. Yahoo! Finance has Book Value at $0.08 per share.