PPHM News 08/25/2014 16:32:30 $PPHM
If you took Peregrine and Avid, all their cash, all their assets, Cotara on the shelf and Bavi in Ph3.... What "in reality" are they worth??
Wow,
Lowest volume day since June 2012. Everyone must have been buying MYEC today.
Definitely interesting times, hate watching the paint dry though.
PPHM Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Peregrine-Pharmac...PHM-55152/
Not to worry. The only way we are selling for less than $2B is if the science doesn't work or someone has found a way around it. If that is so, then I do not know why they would be purchasing pphm at all.
If the science works and is protected, we will see one or more partnerships 1st to be followed by a buyout relatively quickly (with in 2 years) thereafter once the pps has escalated to the level that warrants a buyout.
Can you find anything positive, really positive, about PPHM?
Zumantu,I am sure others here would enjoy reading top-light research papers, such as you provide readers of the AMRN IHub board.
7 here so far.
Low volume and low price prove a lot...
...if this were so hot, PPHM would be a heck of a lot higher than $1.65 per share. Fact is, it ain't hot.
And what is that about the current stock price being a reflection of future earnings?
I guess those statements by expert witnesses that state how badly pphm is managed and how management has been negligent are accurate also. Share price kind of tells the story. The sad part now is that partnership rumors being purposely circulated now can't even get volume in to the share price. Of course I am sure people are being subconsciously manipulated to not buy pphm shares at these warehouse prices.
Read Carboat's last two mgs if you want the true skinny. I have to admit the Duke Paper or lack of it was a true bummer but the road to ANY biotech success is strewn with craters and detours. So the low vol and price prove nothing, IMO.
If Roche is buying us out outright in the next few months, people here will be very angry. It would be for less than $2b, I believe.
So those possible partnerships are "official"? Funny stuff. Hard to believe that Abbvie or PPHM hasn't come out to deny what was in a court document.
The only official partnership discussions were the mega-deals with Stason and DIOS.
Dios mio.
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.
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!!
If you took Peregrine and Avid, all their cash, all their assets, Cotara on the shelf and Bavi in Ph3.... What "in reality" are they worth??
Wow,
Lowest volume day since June 2012. Everyone must have been buying MYEC today.
Definitely interesting times, hate watching the paint dry though.
PPHM Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Peregrine-Pharmac...PHM-55152/
Not to worry. The only way we are selling for less than $2B is if the science doesn't work or someone has found a way around it. If that is so, then I do not know why they would be purchasing pphm at all.
If the science works and is protected, we will see one or more partnerships 1st to be followed by a buyout relatively quickly (with in 2 years) thereafter once the pps has escalated to the level that warrants a buyout.
Can you find anything positive, really positive, about PPHM?
Zumantu,I am sure others here would enjoy reading top-light research papers, such as you provide readers of the AMRN IHub board.
7 here so far.
Low volume and low price prove a lot...
...if this were so hot, PPHM would be a heck of a lot higher than $1.65 per share. Fact is, it ain't hot.
And what is that about the current stock price being a reflection of future earnings?
I guess those statements by expert witnesses that state how badly pphm is managed and how management has been negligent are accurate also. Share price kind of tells the story. The sad part now is that partnership rumors being purposely circulated now can't even get volume in to the share price. Of course I am sure people are being subconsciously manipulated to not buy pphm shares at these warehouse prices.
Read Carboat's last two mgs if you want the true skinny. I have to admit the Duke Paper or lack of it was a true bummer but the road to ANY biotech success is strewn with craters and detours. So the low vol and price prove nothing, IMO.
If Roche is buying us out outright in the next few months, people here will be very angry. It would be for less than $2b, I believe.
So those possible partnerships are "official"? Funny stuff. Hard to believe that Abbvie or PPHM hasn't come out to deny what was in a court document.
The only official partnership discussions were the mega-deals with Stason and DIOS.
Dios mio.
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.
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!!
