[ VIMRx for NEPF ]
Discussion, for a friend, who asked about VIMRx in another thread....
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SHARES PERCENT
NAME BENEFICIALLY OWNED OUTSTANDING
---- ------------------ -----------
<S> <C> <C>
Richard L. Dunning.......................... 303,595(1) *
Francis M. O'Connell........................ 50,740(2) *
Alfonso J. Tobia, Ph.D...................... 75,000(3) *
Donald G. Drapkin........................... 562,500(4)(5) 1.0%
Laurence D. Fink............................ 433,333(4)(6) *
Jerome Groopman, M.D........................ 50,000(4) *
Linda G. Robinson........................... 183,333(4) *
Eric A. Rose, M.D........................... 584,900(7) 1.0%
Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D................... 6,114,999(4)(8) 10.6%
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019
Michael Weiner, M.D......................... 62,410(4) *
Paramount Capital Asset Management Inc...... 4,049,999(9) 7.3%
c/o Lindsay A. Rosenwald, M.D.
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019
Mellon Bank Corporation..................... 2,865,000(10) 5.2%
One Mellon Bank Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15258.............
All directors and executive officers as a
group
(11 persons)............................... 8,583,310(11) 14.7%
NEPF.... this is from the proxy, 11/6/97. If you read through this thread, you will see the difference between a Paramount/Aries/Rosenwald company and a Lampert company. You will also find one horror story, GNTA. Carol recently asked about PGEN, another P/A/R company, in the "charts" thread. Here is my answer.....
Message 3825532
The "they" in that message is P/A/R et al. The fishing in this instance is the subsidiary with Baxter and the CD34+ stem cell project. Like I said, movers and shakers...... and, in this instance, the hypericin was a pile that stunk and stunk but attracted just enough money to keep the fishing going. The CD34+ project is top notch. Refer to CellPro for the business model. The trouble with CellPro is that Baxter/Becton Dickinson/Johns Hopkins held the patent.
So, your question is VERY interesting..... VIMRx is the reason that I came to dislike the P/A/R approach with a passion. It was, IMO, harmful to the sector. It was the first and best example of what I consider to be the "bait and switch" approach of P/A/R. To me, these business plans are funded largely by the naive public. VIMRx was the clear cut enemy, for me, for years. And, now, they've got a great project and a great partner. Go fish.
Lots of history here.... in '92, CellPro made one of the all-time boner moves in biotech and filed suit against Baxter and B-D. It was *obvious* that they were going to lose. The irony?.... the license was available.... Baxter wasn't interested in cornering the project, and Applied Immune Sciences and Tom Okarma grabbed the opportunity. They were later purchased by Rhone-Poulenc Rorer.
Not bad, NEPF. Good eye. Lots and lots of shares. I'd take a look at the CellPro (CPRO) business plan and analyst's stuff before they came unglued.
Cheers! Rick |
