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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bdalarge who wrote (8098)	11/23/2001 1:15:04 PM
From: Joe Krupa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Dave, "As much as I would like to agree with you, I think there is one problem with your thinking. If we had an approvable letter for Pennsaid then I believe that would be considered material and Dimethaid would be forced to release an NR." You would think so. Though after reading further about what an approvable letter actually means I'm not sure. There are conditions that have to be met right from the initial NDA filing all the way up to the time final approval is granted. Until the very final condition is met, even if that means the plant front door needs to be painted pink, then we are not going to receive approval. Yes, every step of the way, and every condition we satisfy, gets us closer to approval. But, there is no ability to receive approval if even the most minor and trivial condition is not met. In that sense, there is no hierarchy of approval importance - every issue or condition met is just as important as the other. Painting the door pink is ultimately just as important toward getting approved, as is proving the drug does not kill people. What am I trying to say? Basically, that until final approval is received, there really is no material news, since there are still issues to be resolved or conditions to be met. In other words, passing through the pharmacology and statistical departments means squat if they don't pass the plant inspection. An "approvable letter" really only says that certain conditions, out of many" have been met to date. Perhaps my logic is flawed, and I would be willing to consider all other opinions. This just happens to be my 'pinion. I admit that this argument I have presented, approaches "material event" from the perspective of an event that significantly changes the reality of a business, not of the TSE definition of "material event" which is purely based on the capacity of an event to move the stock price. That in itself may discredit everything I have just said. "If I am wrong about that then the other side of it is that there is no way in hell that kind of information would not have been leaked. With that type of leak we would see much greater volume and the price inching forward not backwards." Heck, the plant inspection was not only leaked, Rebecca came right out and put it in print. A few days later, it has not really done a heck of a lot for the stock price or volume - we are drifting back from whence we came! My point is that, if actually announcing an FDA development such as a plant inspection, in print, can't really move the price and volume, why would a rumour or leak? The reality is that many people barely believe words from Rebecca's own mouth, let alone through a third party leak. joe

To: bdalarge who wrote (8098)	11/23/2001 1:36:07 PM
From: Cal Gary	Respond to of 14101

Hi bdalarge "price inching forward not backwards" RTQ: 4.01 What we are experiencing is the hedging activities by the three amigos. (Not entirely arbitrager, not entirely shorts. The shorts are some who post on SH.) Without their actions we'd be inching, err pedaling forward. Most of the selling is from the three amigos. Everyone knows this so they wait for shares to hit their bids instead of buying the offer. Root cause, DMX does not have enough cash on hand to give the market the "great confidence and great comfort" it needs. Therefore the equity financing. Now, if RK and board can come up with a better alternative source of cash, the three amigos would be in all purposes gone. Best sources of course would be sales. Dimethaid ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM Oct 18th 2001: "As at May 31, 2001 the directors and senior officers of Dimethaid as a group beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, or exercised control or direction over 4.7 % of the outstanding common shares." 4.7% is a measely 1.95 million shares. But at Jan 19, NR date of Acqua Equity financing, the shares were $7.00, or insider's stake worth about $13.65 million. Last friday, (yes, only one week ago) the insider's stake dropped to about $6.8 million. So their decision to go with the Acqua equity financing (and hopefully a strategy that went with it) cost them $6.8 million in paper losses to that point in time. By strategy, I mean they would supply the milestone NRs (or at least registering sales, however meager) at the same time as getting buckets of cash from Acqua. In hindsight, reflecting upon a straight equity financing back in January for $10mm more more (even with a large discount to market) would have been a great move. Everything in hindsight is easy to say. For $6.8 million, they could have bought a better financing package. I hope their working their butts off at a better arrangement.... RTQ 4.05 PS Based on the above analysis, DMX will be better off hiring a CFO externally and not from within.