SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : IPIC
IPIC 0.00010000.0%Dec 18 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: paul001 who wrote (760)9/30/1997 10:39:00 PM
From: NeuroInvestment   of 1359
 
The Barron's article that precipitated all of this concern regarding indemnification had no more accuracy or ethical center than the cheapest of supermarket tabloids. The misrepresentation of the Interneuron portfolio has already been effectively refuted here. This comment has to do only with the indemnification clauses: these are routine between pharmaceutical partners. Indeed, it would be nice if Kate Welling would do an article on those companies not requiring this type of cross-indemnification by partners; it will be a very short piece. The bottom line is that if IPIC were found to have been negligent or fraudulent re: Redux, AHP would be indemnified. That is not going to happen. If AHP's marketing force was found to have erred, or AHP found negligent for not responding to the case reports it received in March, IPIC is indemnified. IPIC has no added exposure regarding anything AHP did, certainly no exposure regarding fen-phen, which is by far the most probable culprit (if it is not obesity itself responsible for any valvular changes). Intentionally or not, incompetent press coverage has abetted the efforts of short sellers to drive down the IPIC share price. It is slimy and amoral, but it is also transient. NeuroInvestment
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext