OT: Irwin James Frankel, first, thank you! 1. It is nice that you grant me the Spanish one, at least I did not end up subilogical and/or sub-nonsense!
2a. "" Here is one: " then you know that BMY could not be right.” I never said that. ""
Sorry, it seem to me you imply it, now I know you did not, my apologies!
2b. ""I did say, " I doubt there ever was one [case].” (2016) By saying that I doubt that BMY has a case, I am saying that I find it improbable that BMY could win a case against IMCL. You misrepresent my post by restating it as a categorical statement.""
Now, I get it right, You are "doubting BMY has a case, improbable BMY could win". Reasonable.
3. "I described my recent positions in IMCL in some detail, I made it clear that I had a position and what it was."
My apologies for #3, I did not notice your previous statements of positions in Imcl.
4. ""frequent categorical statements""
"But where did you get the idea that the legal department of BMY has opined that BMY will prevail over IMCL in some suit? ""
I did not say they "opined that", I said "they feel that", it is a subjective statement. Granted, I do not have more than a guess based on their very public disputes.
5. ”(a) You believe Bmy will be better not fighting for their rights (b)after being cheated.” I never said that BMY had been cheated."
I did imply NOTHING about you saying (b),
(a) is non-categorical, just my impression of it. My apologies for (a).
6. "" Nor did BMY invest $1.2 billion expecting to get the money back. They expect a return on the investment.""
Sounds non-categorical !!! Where did BMY state that "they are not expecting their $1.2B back, just a return in the investment"? Contradictory "not back" "yes return".
It is not "return" same as "back", so do they or they do not.
And it is ilogical to think they put $1.2B and they do not want it back, the least they expected was stock appreciation, not a 70% decline on the way to zero $ (if that what you mean by "return" fine, it is just not clear).
"The only way that will happen is to get C-225 approved and commercialized.", We plain do not agree on that one.
7. “sam has been known to damage science fellows work of months"". Easy, check New York Times profile article on sam, the Mount Sinai Hospital Scientist quoted on it is very clear, almost joyful and honor of saying why he fire him. If sam was libel(ed) he could go after him is in print.
8. "First, some published reports suggest the government is interested in the leak.", there is one report that mention one "shareholder" complained (about the leak), not that they are investigating it. Not that it is their main interest.
""Second, saying the leak was OK because the information was the property of the shareholders, becomes laughable when you add that the information was used by shorts""
I never said that the shorts used it, neither that it was appropriate if done BEFORE the "newsletter" put it out; but AFTER it was public to everyone at the same time is LEGAL for everyone to short-long-buy-sell, not before.
And I do not have any evidence of "ilegal shorting" not even of the "timing" of any short, neither considered it morally or legaly right.
The longs got a SERVICE, real information the company denied them. That is plain true. Buy,hold, sell, short is the investor decision, quite fair, and surprisingly a lot of time to get out (or in). I thougt it was going to $25 on one day of trading, it took weeks.
9. " First, the premise that sam knew all the problems, is in doubt."
NO DOUBTS, the RTF letter excerpts mentioned that since AUGUST 2000 the FDA has complained about design, execution, and documentation of the trial in an ongoing basis all the way till the RTF was officialy sent to Imcl.
The stock did not go from low digits to $71 during the same period cause all that information was out, it was the opposite pattern of feeding the hype got the Market Value to a non deserving $5.5 billion.
"Some level of optimism (rosey view) is required in leaders."
I am not a child, I value my money, I want the information, not their optimism. I will trust their optimism after proven with facts, not before.
"A lot could be explained by this phenomenon."
NO excuse at all for withheld material information, mismanaged a trial, impaired a drug development, cheating a partner, insider trading, 70% loss of value, tons of class action lawsuits, SEC/FBI/Congress investigation, and lying blantantly outright. Keep the leadership optimism, give me the money.
10. ""You don’t think Sam fooled BMY into thinking they had done PIII’s?"" NO. PIIIs are ongoing.
Regards,
cacaito !!! |
