It's been more than a month since he sold the stock, sufficient time to unblind and audit the data and likely give him a pretty good idea of the results -- but not enough to issue a proper report. "None of this . . . means a hill of beans if the BPH results aren't barn burners" -- exactly.
Primary audience for this PR (like other recent PRs) is potential acquirers, who might see this as justifying a higher price for a product which can be sold to the patient as a two-fer, treating BPH and killing any latent p. ca. ceils in the area of the injection. So what's new? What's new is that he's seen the data and knows what he's got.
This is my interpretation as well. Stated differently, if establishing residence in the Bahamas were part of a "secret" plan to abscond, you'd probably not announce it in a SEC filing five months beforehand. On the other hand, this kind of "tax planning" is exactly what you'd expect from someone expecting a large windfall.
Wasn't me. I'm in this to the end, like you . . .curious to see what happens. Large position but well hedged. By the way, there is a hedgie with a position biased to the downside which will also pay big on the upside with a sp $12.31 Last time I looked, it had 2/3 of the Sept 14 puts (bad bet on Dr. A) while I have a fair share of the Oct -Novs, so speculation about insiders, tippees, smart money, etc. "knowing something" is to that extent misplaced. You're right about one thing: we're going to hear soon, and whichever way it goes, the sp is going to take off.
Fair question, but if you think I've given A a long leash, you ain't been listening. Why didn't he explain? Because, like a lot of doc/CEO types, he fears lawyers and foolishly believes that silence is "safer"; because like all entrepreneurs he wants to control the result, and experience has shown that he doesn't do explanation well -- vide his initially maladroit explanation of the p. ca. results. There is a dark side to this approach, of course, and its this: he has made himself and his defects (and strengths) the Co. His "neck" (i.e., his rep, his money, etc.) is stuck out a mile and if you need a reason to invest it is that he can't afford to fail. You think he's arrogant. I will tell you that he better be arrogant; he also, given all that he's got riding on this, had better deliver.
This what you're getting at, Fenix? (See if this l__k passes the censors.) ftp://ftp.biostat.wisc.edu/pub/chappell/641/papers/paper35.pdf In any case, how does ASpending apply to tablulation of results where safety only reported?
As you may remember, I was an early investor in SPHS -- to my eternal regret. Company at that time was getting financing from Warburg Pincus, the largest VCl firm in the world, and a group I know well from a previous incarnation -- all to the good, right? Except that WP bailed out, and the supposedly expert management left in place then attempted to float a IPO on Nasdaq only to find that they'd badly misjudged institutional investors' interest in BPH. End result, they ended up giving the brokers running the offering a huge discount against the agreed upon share price. A 2 yr. old could have done better. Meanwhile, back in the real world, NYMX was completing trials (more or less), publishing results (more or less), etc. Your point about them being copycats is dead right, as a little due diligence will clearly show. They've been shadowing NYMX, hoping to piggyback the process and the result.. From what I've seen, they know nothing about the mkts and less about mgmt..
Yeah, you're looking at the press release. I'm looking at the actual notice as filed with the SEC and the Quebec Securities Commission. You're probably right about the release of the results, and we know from experience that he always takes his time to report (or to massage the PR), but I detect a new sense of urgency in some of the releases he has gotten out recently. Well, who knows? Trying to divine his motives is a bit like trying to psychoanalyze the weather . . .
Don't know what you were looking at, but the actual "Early Warning" notice says "On August 6, 2014 Dr. Paul Averback sold 470,000 common shares of the Corporation . . . ." As I recall, the Canadian notice did not give it a date, but did provide one interesting bit of information. In order to qualify for a "No Prospectus Exemption" under Rule 45 --106, the sale had to be an "isolated sale" to a dealer in securities. As you may know, there was also a lock up or prohibition against resale for 4 mos.
August 6, if you can believe the date on the Sedar filing. No date was given on the OSC. See your mood hasn't improved . . .
I have not sold a share, nor do I intend to -- unless our boy dreams up some other, worse dumb ass move. I did however pick up another 30k puts (for insurance sake) to which I'll probably more xxx index options, etc. Part of the problem here is the risk off psychology of the current mkt, which is dragging down all the biotechs. (I'm actually surprised that NYMX has not fallen further, though that may happen in after hours or tomorrow.) Why stay? Because all the evidence suggests the drug works; because the PhIII results are likely imminent; because if the results turn out to be bad and the sp tanks, A will be in a world of hurt, as he surely must know. The most likely scenario is that he didn't know the results, really needed the money and sold just before the results were unblinded, relying on his ignorance, the purity of his motives and his belief in the efficacy of the drug to carry the day. Meanwhile, purchased calls outnumbered puts 30 to 1 today (before I waded in), the stock opened at 5.68, traded from 5 to 5.74 and closed at 5.03, this on a day when tweeters and bloggers were ripping it apart.
(Suggest you read the posting below before you read this). In a few words, this would never have happened in company in which I was CEO or GC. Why? Not because it was "illegal," speaking of scenario II, but because you can never tell how the mkt is going to react to news and because it is unfair to shareholders, particularly those who "foolishly" decide to sell.. In my world, the co. would be in a self imposed "quiet period" during which not only the CEO but all senior management would be prohibited from giving tips or trading in company stock. This is what I advised CEOs to do, and it is what I did myself in real life. For CEOs who need money, my advice would be take a basket full of stk certs.. to the bank and get a loan. I never had a scenario I -- maybe because it was well known that I would not tolerate it -- but if I were faced with such a request (and GCs do pass on such matters) and I could not talk the CEO out of what I saw as a clearly improper sale,I would have said "get yourself a new boy"
Suppose CEO, X, of a biotech about to release extremely NB data on a pivotal clinical trial; -needs money; suppose he knows, and surely would be advised, that a sale of any portion of a large block on the eve of the release of the data may be construed as a vote of no confidence -- causing the pps to fall and, if the news is bad, eliciting lawsuits, fines and invstgns. But suppose that he has reason to believe that the news will be very positive, in which case the pps will rise and the SEC will stay in its box (no harm having been done to shareholders). According to this scenario, he can afford to give up 000k shares because what he is still holding, the control block, is enough to make him rich beyond his wildest dreams, As for "taking his chances," he will be told that as a practical matter it's "no harm, no foul." In a second posting, I will tell you what I as a pub. co. G C advised CEOs to do and why
The sale by a CEO of stock on the basis of material non-public information would be a breach of fiduciary duty and a very serious violation of sec. laws, which could result in the disgorgement of profits, civil fines, criminal penalties and a ban on serving as the CEO of a public co. Recently, it was the basis for the imposition of the longest jail term in the history of Rule 10b5 (11 years, Rajaratnam case.). No foul if the sale was made pursuant to a pre-adopted, systematic plan of selling or if the seller was unaware at the time of sale of any material, non public information. Alain Fournier is a Partner in the firm of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, a leading 400 lawyer bus. law firm with offices in five cities, including New York. There is no evidence on this set of facts that the CEO or Fournier conspired to violate the rule against insider trading, nor has a violation been alleged.by anyone. Untimely this notice certainly is, but that may also be best evidence of propriety, as no sensible CEO and no competent lawyer would think of trading stk on the basis of "pivotal" non public information regarding the success or failure of a ph III trial.
In fact, Issiahbankerxfn has plagiarized -- word for word -- a comment made by me on another matter, quite unrelated to P III results. Ran out of things to say, apparently. Funny, and particularly stupid, even for this lot.
Both the Act and the Rules promulgated under it are complex, but as I read the Act (and the Rules), the limitation is now 1 yr., not 40 days. In any case, the stock's restricted status does not change, and Reg S registration must be complied with if sold to U.S. citizens. ( LG is free to distribute shares to its investors but they remain subject to the same restrictions on resale as does LG itself.)
At 10:26 (and 19 sec.) someone bought 13864 shrs and the price went from 5.05 to 5.50. Of course, it went back to 5.01 twenty minutes later, but if you wanted to know what happens when a thinly traded, low float stk is subjected to min. buying pressure, there it is
Last time I looked, Doc had 11+ million shares. LG still subject to Reg S and LG's covenants with NYMX requiring legending of the certificates and compliance with the amended Reg, which states "equity securities placed offshore by domestic issuers under Regulation S will be classified as "restricted securities" within the meaning of Rule 144, so that resales without registration or an exemption from registration will be restricted." In short, LG and A still own 23+ million or 65%. Insts. hold at least 4-5% ,