Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Cel-Sci Corp (AMEX:CVM) (was HIV) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Shutters who wrote (2708)	9/27/1999 7:17:00 PM
From: jjrocket	Respond to of 2836

Those were my gut reactions as well. Hopefully someone will be explain these events satisfactorily? Atlanta

To: Tom Shutters who wrote (2708)	9/27/1999 7:27:00 PM
From: fmrick	Respond to of 2836

Tom, Here is my take. I base it on the release today and conversations I've had over the last couple months with several people, inside and outside the company, who seem to know what is going on. I see this as a first step toward the first license agreement for LEAPS. I also see it as a good step. Good for Cel-Sci and for the licensee. Why? First, I don't want to see us license the entire company. If an investor came by and was interested in LEAPS (Let's assume it is a drug company) and had $10MM to invest, we would have to sell them a piece of the whole company, including interest in HGP-30 and Multikine. This way they only get the the piece they wanted and we still retain everything else. The same could happen with HGP-30 with Viral Technologies. We can sell little pieces and retain the ownership in the rest. It should be very clear by now that the company is wanting to keep control of Multikine. The second reason is what the investor wants. Maybe they want their money invested in LEAPS only and are not interested in the other technologies. One reason for this could be they want LEAPS for their drugs. If they are willing to pay us for it, all the better. It is a win win situation for us any way you cut it. Cel-Sci Corp. owns these technologies, not the management. Any sale of rights will go to Cel-Sci, not any one shareholder. Remember what we have invested in LEAPS. Less than a few million, if I remember right. If I'm correct about this new company, it is just the first step we will see. Next we will sell a percentage interest to an investor or a group of investors. But we will maintain control. I also expect the same type of deals for Viral. This money should flow to Cel-Sci and should be used for the development of Multikine. What a deal. We keep control of the main technology and sell minority rights to the others. As long as we own at least 50% of MaxPharma and Viral, I have no problem. If you see it differently, please feel free to explain. I know sometimes I look too much to the positive side of this stuff. But I really do think we have started down a path the will be good for the company. Rick

To: Tom Shutters who wrote (2708)	9/27/1999 9:55:00 PM
From: Jerry A. Balcolm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2836

Tom, Rick touched on just about everything. Geert did say more than a year ago that he could not handle L.E.A.P.S. alone. I think the key here for all of us is a means of generating financing for the company, prior to the marketing of any product, with no further dilution to current shareholders. Given the coming anticipated results with MULTIKINE, and the financing, partnering, etc.of L.E.A.P.S., we should have nothing but upward movement. Notice how today's release brought no pump and dumpers. I think some may be a bit reluctant to mess with this stock now. Or perhaps there is something else happening in the very near future that will generate some dumping.??

To: Tom Shutters who wrote (2708)	9/28/1999 8:15:00 AM
From: Alan Brezin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2836

Tom, I agree the news is sketchy. It is a "LEAPS" of faith for shareholders, imo. However, if HIV retains a major interest in LEAPS and any new investors in Max Pharama earn their interest in fair proportion to their investment, it would seem like a fair idea. Frankly, why wouldn't an investor interested in LEAPS be interested in owning a pro rata share of Multikine if it was worth a damn? Why not have the diversity in your biotech investment, especially since the two technologies are supposed to be complimentary as I understand them to be? Or is LEAPS not worth that much that Geert doesn't want to give up a share in Multikine for what it gets for LEAPS and funnels back to Multikine perhaps? Only the shadow knows? Alan