PPHM Company info 08/25/2014 14:32:18 $PPHM
It would make sense since the partnership page is completely gone...no need for partnership when some BP buying them outright. You can't ask for a bigger partner than Roche, right? GLTAL.
Quote:
I'm not trying to start rumours, but rather trying to stop rumours by the many that say PPHM is not in any current partnering negotiations.
My post only implies Bayer was interested as recently as 2nd quarter 2014 and in no way does it actually say anything has been decided by either party.
thanks for the post. As of now, we can officially link possible partnership interests to Bayer as of 2Q 2014 and with Abbott back in 2012 per witness testimony on legal documents submitted as part of the Peregrine vs. CSM lawsuit. I'd also like to add that neither side ever denied those claims that Peregrine was about to sign a partnership with Abbott back in that timeframe. We can also add "Ambit Biosciences" per Peregrine employee profiles as another collaboration to the mix... heck, that has been ongoing for about 8 months...
Patterns have formed and still forming and I've just about ran out of colored string connecting all these dots.
PPHM Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Peregrine-Pharmac...PHM-55152/
LOL, the Duke Report...BTW, I feel something is up, too. Whether it's good or bad, we'll soon find out (or, it could be a dud as in nothing occurs). GL.
All this talk about a proxy...maybe Roche will be in there...maybe not.
Judging by todays price action and volume, I'd say something HUGE is right around the corner. The Duke paper?
Never did, never will... Unless she proves us wrong... Until then, nope.
Bungler or anyone else have an update on this: This was on May 29th from Bungler: It was about the betabodies
"This is a "non-final" rejection, meaning that the Applicant has the right to respond and/or amend the claims; therefore Dr. Fussey needs to formulate a response to the examiner's position that it would have been allegedly "obvious" to combine disclosures of three separate documents to arrive at the claimed invention. My initial impression is that this examiner has not received sufficient training to understand that he simply cannot disagree with an affidavit submitted to traverse the proposed combination of prior art. Unless there is EVIDENCE in the record that contradicts Dr. Thorpe's Affidavit that was filed in October 2012, the examiner MUST accept it. Let's see how Dr. Fussey responds"
So you believe this "sierra", eh?
Yup and that's why we're stuck at $300mm market cap.... Because that's what Roche wants to pay for us.... Could you imagine?.. NOT!!
As I said you are on top of this. I don't doubt that many on this board will reconsider even holding shares of PPHM. Where were you in 2006 when I bought this bummer of a stock, anyhow?
Pretty funny stuff. Maybe the catalyst list should be expanded to Bayer buying pphm because they mentioned them in 2004, and Peregrine the asset mgmt software company secretly buying tickets to have partner meetings.
Right on time..."sierra's" Roche pump today:
Roche Buyout Negotiations Of PPHM To Be Confirmed In Upcoming Official Roche Press Release Predicts Sierra World Equity Review
A final Countdown?
Thanks for clearly that up. I was about to buy more shares but not now. Thanks.
It does not mean Bayer was looking at pphm in 2014, just that thw page was auto rebuilt then. They are called CMS systems, no one sis around writing html/xml pages. Just like the pphm partner tab eing gone - meaningless.
We've been on the down low for so long I can't get up.
Maybe their trying to keep it on the down low. ; )
LOL
wook
With the pending RS, partnership, CA, CSM, curing cancer and now no TICKETS..........!
it's no wonder we have only traded 200K today...............!
No, I am guessing they do communicate with the Investigator and are on friendly terms. However, they publicly state they have no control and in terms of a lawsuit, I would think this would go a long way in protecting them. Good luck trying to prove differently.
The fact that they issue a PR and include a quote is nothing more than relaying based on what the quote says this is what we think is happening (legally speaking).
IMO someone would have a tough time holding them accountable for the quote. If a company says we plan to make a lot of money selling widgets this year so loan us money based on the following. They show quotes from 10 companies that buy widgets from them saying they plan on buying a lot of widgets due to projected business the rest of the year and the business doesn't materialize, I don't think the lender has a case unless he can show their was definite intent to mislead. Tough to prove. Of course I don't know it all. Just a little bit.
I am sure there is a conspiracy there somewhere. Anybody can sue anybody. There is always a fool who is willing to make the attorneys money.
It would make sense since the partnership page is completely gone...no need for partnership when some BP buying them outright. You can't ask for a bigger partner than Roche, right? GLTAL.
Quote:
I'm not trying to start rumours, but rather trying to stop rumours by the many that say PPHM is not in any current partnering negotiations.
My post only implies Bayer was interested as recently as 2nd quarter 2014 and in no way does it actually say anything has been decided by either party.
thanks for the post. As of now, we can officially link possible partnership interests to Bayer as of 2Q 2014 and with Abbott back in 2012 per witness testimony on legal documents submitted as part of the Peregrine vs. CSM lawsuit. I'd also like to add that neither side ever denied those claims that Peregrine was about to sign a partnership with Abbott back in that timeframe. We can also add "Ambit Biosciences" per Peregrine employee profiles as another collaboration to the mix... heck, that has been ongoing for about 8 months...
Patterns have formed and still forming and I've just about ran out of colored string connecting all these dots.
PPHM Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Peregrine-Pharmac...PHM-55152/
LOL, the Duke Report...BTW, I feel something is up, too. Whether it's good or bad, we'll soon find out (or, it could be a dud as in nothing occurs). GL.
All this talk about a proxy...maybe Roche will be in there...maybe not.
Judging by todays price action and volume, I'd say something HUGE is right around the corner. The Duke paper?
Never did, never will... Unless she proves us wrong... Until then, nope.
Bungler or anyone else have an update on this: This was on May 29th from Bungler: It was about the betabodies
"This is a "non-final" rejection, meaning that the Applicant has the right to respond and/or amend the claims; therefore Dr. Fussey needs to formulate a response to the examiner's position that it would have been allegedly "obvious" to combine disclosures of three separate documents to arrive at the claimed invention. My initial impression is that this examiner has not received sufficient training to understand that he simply cannot disagree with an affidavit submitted to traverse the proposed combination of prior art. Unless there is EVIDENCE in the record that contradicts Dr. Thorpe's Affidavit that was filed in October 2012, the examiner MUST accept it. Let's see how Dr. Fussey responds"
So you believe this "sierra", eh?
Yup and that's why we're stuck at $300mm market cap.... Because that's what Roche wants to pay for us.... Could you imagine?.. NOT!!
As I said you are on top of this. I don't doubt that many on this board will reconsider even holding shares of PPHM. Where were you in 2006 when I bought this bummer of a stock, anyhow?
Pretty funny stuff. Maybe the catalyst list should be expanded to Bayer buying pphm because they mentioned them in 2004, and Peregrine the asset mgmt software company secretly buying tickets to have partner meetings.
Right on time..."sierra's" Roche pump today:
Roche Buyout Negotiations Of PPHM To Be Confirmed In Upcoming Official Roche Press Release Predicts Sierra World Equity Review
A final Countdown?
Thanks for clearly that up. I was about to buy more shares but not now. Thanks.
It does not mean Bayer was looking at pphm in 2014, just that thw page was auto rebuilt then. They are called CMS systems, no one sis around writing html/xml pages. Just like the pphm partner tab eing gone - meaningless.
We've been on the down low for so long I can't get up.
Maybe their trying to keep it on the down low. ; )
LOL
wook
With the pending RS, partnership, CA, CSM, curing cancer and now no TICKETS..........!
it's no wonder we have only traded 200K today...............!
No, I am guessing they do communicate with the Investigator and are on friendly terms. However, they publicly state they have no control and in terms of a lawsuit, I would think this would go a long way in protecting them. Good luck trying to prove differently.
The fact that they issue a PR and include a quote is nothing more than relaying based on what the quote says this is what we think is happening (legally speaking).
IMO someone would have a tough time holding them accountable for the quote. If a company says we plan to make a lot of money selling widgets this year so loan us money based on the following. They show quotes from 10 companies that buy widgets from them saying they plan on buying a lot of widgets due to projected business the rest of the year and the business doesn't materialize, I don't think the lender has a case unless he can show their was definite intent to mislead. Tough to prove. Of course I don't know it all. Just a little bit.
I am sure there is a conspiracy there somewhere. Anybody can sue anybody. There is always a fool who is willing to make the attorneys money.
