Recent

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

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Message Board

teebrane 145 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 4, 2015 5:18 PM Member since: Nov 12, 2008
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Silence the Pumpers Silence the Spinsters

    by jacat62 Apr 2, 2015 7:15 AM
    teebrane teebrane Apr 4, 2015 5:18 PM Flag

    Are you under the impression that we don't know exactly what sort of baloney you'll type before you even type it? Read the May 2013 remand and get a grip on yourself.

  • Reply to

    PIP BASHERS GETTING NERVOUS AS APRIL APPROACHES!

    by lelhill Mar 31, 2015 7:20 AM
    teebrane teebrane Apr 2, 2015 12:19 PM Flag

    Thanks - I see what you mean now.

  • Reply to

    Silence the Pumpers Silence the Spinsters

    by jacat62 Apr 2, 2015 7:15 AM
    teebrane teebrane Apr 2, 2015 8:41 AM Flag

    Oh basher...there you go again. I read your article. Nothing there that was news to me. No clue how you get some negative on PIP from that, but I suspect your real point was avoiding your own Pepsi challenge - "What price do you think the market would assign to PIP if the DE SC upholds Chancery, given the stated intention of the current CEO to return value to shareholders?" That and the high probability of that outcome are the items that matter on the question of buying or selling PIP and at what prices. You won't do that homework outloud here because no answer that suits your book could possibly sound honest, and if there's one thing I know about you little Ackmen, honesty is rarely your best policy. But I'm sure you'll attempt more distractions and distortions here while your partners in crime try to weasel out of paying the piper. I'm actually good with it...one of my bigger value plays netted me 87% recently, so I have that working capital back, in addition to the usual cash I reserve for boxing out you blowhards. Hit my bid, douche.

  • Reply to

    PIP BASHERS GETTING NERVOUS AS APRIL APPROACHES!

    by lelhill Mar 31, 2015 7:20 AM
    teebrane teebrane Apr 1, 2015 4:25 PM Flag

    What and when is this "exclusivitiy period"? Are you thinking they might spring something on SIGA right before this "exclusivitiy period" ends? Seems to me, the case will wait its turn, then get decided on via the DE SC's take on the merits. If Mafco wants to loan SIGA any needed amount to keep the SIGAQ shareholders viable post-judgment, they certainly could...PIP can't do anything to stop that, and I doubt they'd want to - I think they want to turn shares into cash as soon as possible and get on with their lives. Likewise, the DE SC wouldn't have a problem with that sequence of events if they decided in PIP's favor. What am I missing?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    The people who hate this pumper the most

    by jacat62 Mar 25, 2015 8:00 PM
    teebrane teebrane Mar 26, 2015 8:55 AM Flag

    When the promissory estoppel ruling was current, and SparVax had better BARDA hopes, $8/share was fair value. At the time, you guys were telling everyone to sell near a $1, so press that point if you must, but know it cuts both ways. Waiting for a higher price to sell the shares I bought while you were trying to jawbone your short was the correct call. People like you are a social disease. Tax reform plus an adequately funded SEC is the cure. But until then, don't think for a minute that nobody noticed how you ducked the only important question: what price do you think the market would assign to PIP if the DE SC upholds Chancery, given the stated intention of the current CEO to return value to shareholders?

  • Reply to

    The people who hate this pumper the most

    by jacat62 Mar 25, 2015 8:00 PM
    teebrane teebrane Mar 25, 2015 10:01 PM Flag

    I doubt that you have the self-awarenes to realize that by consistently harrassing me personally, you are providing direct evidence of my flogged-horse point - that you are one of several market manipulating short sellers who bash on message boards in support of established short bets. Of all the people to choose as your hero, why Ben Stiller's character in Dodgeball?

    PIP will be worth very close to whatever gets distributed to shareholders. Do you dispute this? The DE SC certainly has the authority to agree with Chancery's interpretation of the remand instructions. Regardless of whether you think that agreement likely, what price do you think the market would assign to that outcome, given the stated intention of the current CEO to return value to shareholders?

  • ...bought a net 48392 shares from Feb 25 through Mar 10. Short interest went from 2319183 shares down to 2270791. Note that the highest volume day was Mar 10 (337800, range 1.61 to 1.76...no shenanigans there! /sarcasm). Next final day of the SI reporting period is Thursday (Mar 26).

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Insider buy, open market

    by teebrane Mar 23, 2015 6:25 PM
    teebrane teebrane Mar 24, 2015 10:59 AM Flag

    Illegal insider trading has a specific definition - Material and non-public. An example: if the buyer knew someone was planing on making a tender offer for PIP. But there are all kinds of safe harbors when it comes to buying stock on the open market, justified by the prudent rule that insider buyers are prohibited from selling for 6 months. He at least knows what I know, and that is enough to justify the purchase's legality - that PIP will probably prevail in both courts, and that SIGAQ will thus either have to pony up about $200M or wipe out their shareholders and give everything they have to PIP...SIGAQ will obviously prefer the former after they are all out of hissy fits. And that means PIP is trading at about 50% of its fair value. These sorts of buys happen when the buyers are reasonably confident that most if not all the impatient sellers have left, and that they are buying from short sellers who've been pressing their luck fishing for stops.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • 25000 shares @ $1.6485 on 3-19-2015 by Steven St Peter

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 23, 2015 4:52 PM Flag

    First, tell me why you think going from 2.68 to 2.13 counts as "trending up". Then tell me why Mafco put less than $600K into SIGA when they could simply issue a tender offer at $4/share. Then, and only then, will I tell you once again things you would have heard me say many times before if your fingers weren't in your ears and you weren't singing "lalalalalalala". And finally, shouldn't your pumps be on the board of that which you pump, the newly christened SIGAQ?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 23, 2015 2:48 PM Flag

    Head in the facts, confident that the DE SC's decision to uphold Chancery or review the case matters more to the price of PIP (and for that matter, the price of SIGAQ) than you pointing out the "high price" of your falling-knife, Seeking-Alpha-pumped, silly all-over-now-cept-for-the-crying short squeeze that has lost 22% in under 2 weeks. You seem to think our views of PIP's value can be swayed by bear raids and general SIGA-pump shenanigans. No, it's worth whatever is behind door # "DE SC". And if you can't handle the fact that I like my chances, that says a lot more about you than it says about me.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 23, 2015 12:59 PM Flag

    Week of 3-11-2011: 2.10 / 15.66 = 13.41%. 1.62 / 3.75 = 43.2%. You sure that boast is a good idea?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 22, 2015 4:37 PM Flag

    I agree, fwabuster. But I only have standing because I held SIGA in the belief that they would not brazenly forsake their fiduciary duties. Bad decision, no guarantee I'll make much (if anything) of that loss back. But PIP will probably win, and since my SIGA holding was hedge-sized, I'll be fine. Ain't going to hold my breath waiting for their price to be in line with their legal risk, nor for their decisions to be in the best interests of all shareholders (they only seem to care about one of them), but I'll be pleasantly surprised by either.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 22, 2015 4:27 PM Flag

    Your assumption that the FDA would care overmuch about a pennystock pharma stretching a point (quote us exactly what PIP said to get the reprimand - it's pretty obvious you're, as always, over-blowing this) unless someone complained is out of touch. Doesn't make it an unserious matter; however, you pretzel the truth in implying that this has anything to do with the matter before the DE SC. As to your equally-equine-flogging assertion that "Pip failed to finish their part of the bargain before the merger deadline", um, yes, I've heard this baloney many times from short-selling swindlers; you, in particular, seem to want to retry the case on this point. DE SC actually said: "Section 13.3 stipulates that each of the parties must use their “best efforts to take such actions as may be necessary or reasonably requested by the other parties hereto to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.” Section 12.4 provides that those provisions, among others, survive the Merger Agreement’s termination. The Merger Agreement had a drop dead date of September 30, 2006. (footnote: PharmAthene’s representatives testified that Drapkin, worried about the parties’ urgency, explained to them “that he wanted a compressed timeline so that ‘everybody will rush. And if we need extensions [SIGA will] grant them.)" (page 11 - and you really ought to read the whole thing, where upholding the bad faith finding is outlined in detail.) As to "merger agreement had a break up clause for a specified amount", I call shenanigans on you. The break up clause was "if the merger is terminated, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith a definitive license agreement in accordance with the LATS’s terms" (also page 11). Cue some @$&#0!3 short telling us I write term papers whenever I use facts to dispute bear-case BS.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 22, 2015 12:05 PM Flag

    You're entitled to not like what Chancery came up with. And you even grudgingly accept "Pip may end up on top of this". SIGA made their bed, now they lie in it....the judge warned them in Jan 2011 (9 months before the promissory estoppel construction) "It won’t be a stretch for me to conclude that Siga acted in bad faith in the way they negotiated these agreements". Pride, and their inability to accept anything but total victory in the flaunting of the terms of a signed and binding contract (the merger agreement, not the LATS) has produced a textbook case in violation of fiduciary duty. You should sue them...I will, as I also have standing. My take on your FDA-letter-flogged-horse is two-fold: 1) Not relevant to the matter before the DE SC, and 2) it was plainly the FDA responding in agreement to a complaint from a competitor, most likely EBS. In the end, this sorry matter is about the enforceability of contracts. The DE SC says "yep, they are enforceable" by letting Chancery's award stand. If they take up the appeal, they might reduce the amount. But as SIGA's own 10-K states "an appeal by SIGA may result in a different, less favorable ruling that could materially and adversely affect SIGA". So whatever. What you guys really want is for that @$&#0!3 teebrane to sell early, to vindicate your irrational hatred. What I deserve for sticking this out is a 90% or so chance at about $3 in distributions from PIP liquidating, and a 10%-or-so chance that all I have left to show for this adventure is a lawsuit against SIGA and Mafco that I probably won't win. It makes perfect sense why you'd rather I sell before your chickens come home to roost.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 20, 2015 10:35 PM Flag

    So your mom raised a troll. She must be proud. Your irrational hatred of me doesn't actually matter. In all your (by now dozens of) personal attacks, I think I must have missed the part where you explained why the DE SC will think more of the SIGA legal team's current argument than that of their colleague's attempt to fairly follow up the opinion of May 2013. But if the award does not hold up, it does not change the fact that you're not a good person and deserve the sad and lonely life of a mean-spirited message board bully.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 20, 2015 12:49 PM Flag

    At this point, your irrational hatred of our stock and all-caps aspersions don't actually matter. But "What the DE SC determines is fair" does, and I am quite certain that they don't really care what you think. We are beyond any bumhurt SIGA fanboy's ability to actually harm us, unless you count scribbling foment on the price prints as "harm". If the DE SC agrees with you, we lose most of our investment, and your penny stock may recover. If the DE SC agrees with their own prior words, you owe us a bunch of money whether you cover or not - shorts owe any per-share distro as a fee, and the Chancery verdict was about $3.10. PIP isn't "trading up" because we, unlike you, don't do stupid things like pay more for stock than we actually have to. We know you want to scare us, so we instead hope you hit our bids. Our lack of respect for your intelligence means those bids are a tad greedy. If this strategy makes you angry, tough.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • teebrane teebrane Mar 20, 2015 11:17 AM Flag

    So if the DE SC agrees with their colleague instead of you-and-the-SIGA-lawyers, are they "on the take" too? Do you have any responsibility for your own bad investment choices?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Non-Binding

    by sellhighdrinklow Mar 12, 2015 11:14 AM
    teebrane teebrane Mar 16, 2015 11:37 AM Flag

    So you say. But your short friends will still owe whoever loaned them shares a hefty share of the distributed proceeds (unless, of course, people here fall for your "give up hope! chase whatever falseprofits said ought to be chased" pitch, which is of course why you keep making said pitch). Getting a buck-seventy now in exchange for a duty to pay something like $3 in fees, then still have to cover later seems like a bad deal to most folks, but I suppose posting misleading tripe here to feel like a big shot makes it all worthwhile to you. A wild card is, of course, the possibility that you are one of the persons being investigated for short and distort shenanigans. Is badmouthing a stock in a clear attempt to get investors to sell in support of a short bet really a good idea? Why not just say good things about the ones you like before an interested audience? It's a lot safer - informing the proper authorities of your suspicious activities is not exactly difficult these days.

  • Reply to

    Non-Binding

    by sellhighdrinklow Mar 12, 2015 11:14 AM
    teebrane teebrane Mar 15, 2015 8:51 PM Flag

    The rule in question is "15 U.S. Code § 78i" (among others), but nice try trying to pretend there is no such thing as securities fraud. Maybe that mean ol' SEC will pretend that there is no such thing as you.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

OPTT
0.60+0.02(+4.02%)Apr 17 3:59 PMEDT