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: Ron Nairn who wrote (12079)	2/8/2003 3:56:54 PM
From: Montana Wildhack	Respond to of 14101

Ron, Great post. It's good to hear your thoughts again. That this has not at all played out the way we thought doesn't mean it will not play out at all. In that sense just as Rebecca has shown she can be relied on to be overly optimistic she can also be relied on to continue fighting for success - despite some mistakes or shortcomings. She took the acqua route because the she kept thinking she was closer to getting what she wants than she was. She did listen to the shareholders and decided to go for a larger amount from within the existing supporters. I suspect she will continue to be frugal regardless and I expect this offering when it is complete will remove cash concerns for some reasonable time to come. From my perspective neither the sky-is-falling nor the rich-tommorrow group have been right or wrong. The bottom line is we've been kept waiting with regard to what the published brochure said, and what the revised brochure said, and so on (refer to overly optimistic above). Very true. But that only seriously matters to me if poor timing predictions are combined with failures. I suggest people who want to judge the UK go and look up what other products Provalis sells, whether they're in direct competition with Pennsaid, and what that timing was. Personally I prefer Dimethaid to be perfect and seriously I prefer several aspects of how Dimethaid handles things to be greatly improved. Overall though I haven't seen DMX land in the ditch the way some of the other previously touted biotechs have. What I have is frustration from waiting plus confirmation from many of the people around me who suffer from arthritis that Pennsaid is an unbelievably good product. Currently that frustration is directed at not being able to complete a rights offering in over 2 weeks. But its completion will likely remove the cash issue for some time. So I wait. I've become good at it. Good post Ron. Wolf

To: Ron Nairn who wrote (12079)	2/9/2003 1:31:15 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 14101

Ron, a pleasure to read your balanced appraisal. Unfortunately, the DMX dialogue has evolved to the point that anyone who takes a reasoned approach automatically gets labelled "pumper", or worse. If one doesn't take the view that DMX is governed by colossal incompetence, scheming, greedy, malicious management, and providing toxic products that won't work - then the ropes come out, as the lynch mob begins pumping out the paranoia. ( Late edit: stockhouse.ca ) It's been a slog, and yes, there have been mistakes made at DMX. Your post reflects the thinking of the Silent Majority, IMO; for that reason it's especially welcome, because there are many who choose not to speak up, for whatever reasons. There's little to add to what you've said. One possible area of clarification is WRT Provalis and DMX. Some have posted scare stories about the outcome of this action. Termination of such arrangements is a common occurrence in business practice. Normally such contractual arrangements have "escape clauses" built in: Key Performance Indicators, that, if not achieved, will allow termination of the contract. Provalis' argument seems to be based on the contention that DMX did not supply data on efficacy, which would presumably have helped Provalis reach their goal. Well, we don't have the documents in front of us, and it's hard to guess which way it will go. We should note that this has not gone to court, however, but to arbitration. One can view arbitration as a kind of expedited proceeding, designed to resolve the matter quickly, and at minimum cost. Both parties must agree to the process. Normally, the most that would be awarded the plaintiff would be the amount of revenue they would have realized if the contract was properly and completely exercised. The point: even in a worst-case scenario (DMX's unmitigated loss) the arbitrator would likely make a very small award, because (as research - and Wayne's posts - have established) - the UK market is a very tough grind for an OA topical. Also, I think most would agree the circumstances of the failed contract are mitigated. Thanks for the breath of fresh air. Regards, Jim