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 : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: weatherproof who wrote (38496)	1/7/2017 11:02:03 AM
From: stockdoc77	Respond to of 63290

I agree with your points.

To: weatherproof who wrote (38496)	1/7/2017 11:19:20 AM
From: plhky3465	6 Recommendations Recommended By captcobra1 drtom1234 ladyPI patlawche11 sysiphus and 1 more member Respond to of 63290

I have owned IMMU since the early 90s. The one thing we can count on from Goldenberg is that he ALWAYS finds a way to snatch defeat from apparent victory. I'm not a young man anymore. I'm tired of his BS. We dont know exactly what we might get from Venbio but to me it cant be worse than what we know we have in Goldenberg.

To: weatherproof who wrote (38496)	1/7/2017 11:45:30 AM
From: erickerickson	4 Recommendations Recommended By btlbail1 drtom1234 ladyPI patlawche11 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 63290

These two quotes sum things up for me as well. "I can only hope that what serves their interests aligns with mine." and "It dismays me greatly that we find ourselves at this crossroads..." That said, my expectation is that venBio making a boatload of money here would benefit me too. That, unfortunately, is not necessarily true of current management. Current management can continue to receive handsome salaries and bonuses without any benefit for the rest of us. As for this quote: "VenBio's refraining from comment until they "get a look under the hood" doesn't necessarily work for me" " I have been in the position of telling clients that very thing pretty often so I have some sympathy. Personally I'd like details as well. That said, venBio would risk anything specific they said weakening their position wrt the proxy fight or be insider info, neither are things I'd risk if I were them. They claim the don't have the latter, and the former is just bad negotiating. Without doubt it's a leap of faith that I wish I didn't have to make. Unfortunately more of what we've seen for the last may years isn't acceptable to me.

To: weatherproof who wrote (38496)	1/7/2017 11:47:32 AM
From: idahoranch1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 63290

venBio has looked at the potential upside of 132. In the CC Behzad said that when looking at the number of indications for 132, and then combinations, the valuation gets "Silly". I agree with that, and maybe that's what has caused Doc to dig in his heels and not agree to a deal in the last 3 years. I think some of us feel the same way (and is why I won't be selling a lot of stock (some, yes) at $10 if things go well with 132. We'll get a better feel in a week and a half with updated data. I doubt that venBio wants a feather in their cap more than they want a possible 50 bagger. That would be a Chief's Headdress. Just what would SILLY be? ??????

To: weatherproof who wrote (38496)	1/7/2017 11:52:41 AM
From: gary123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 63290

Maybe after VB take a peak under the hood, they'll reach the same conclusion as Doc. insofar as strategy is concerned. I wonder sometimes if at the next annual meeting a question is asked about what was offered just before the secondary and Doc reply "the most BP was offering is $60 mill. upfront", would that change any views here ?, and if they get AA, it would mean Doc strategy was correct all along, if they had license 132 back in 2013, it would have been a monumental mistake. Back in 2005, I read a report by Goldman Sachs entitled "Chasing Rixtuxan", this highly detailed report explained why Veltuzmab (and other cd20 antibodies) would never challenge Rixtuxan, and doing so would probably bankrupt Immu. Even before the first vial is shipped Immu would have incur costs upwards of $120 mill. and a prime reasons why no BP wants it either. I am still puzzle why some still attack the company on Veltuzmab without provide any rational reasonings. Most CEO's will tell you mgmt has a fiduciary responsibility to attempt AA,and going it alone, as the company's founding principle model is not to license compounds. In a sense, the company explicitly alert potential stockholders of its intentions. I always believe Doc knows much more about 132's potential and its chances at AA, after peaking under the hood, and emotion subsides, VB might go down the very same path.

To: weatherproof who wrote (38496)	1/7/2017 1:47:09 PM
From: dorightbythem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 63290

This bares repeating, " My fear is that our voices will become less significant relative to the alliance most likely in place already amongst big pharma, institutional investors, and venBio. Once venBio gains control, we've outlived our usefulness for them. " The odds are greater than 50/50 against 132 getting AA, however, if results hold up 132 does stand a chance for FDA approval based on unmet need and no current SOC for TNBC. We have seen that the results for 132 improve drastically in combination therapy with an inhibitor but that would add years and $s to an approval of 132. The odds are greater than 50/50 that the Company will not exist as an independent entity if 132 gets AA much less exist all the way to NDA before it is gobbled up through acquisition. 2017 M&A outlook for mid-market pharma: dealmaking will continue to be a key growth strategy Growing competition will continue to make companies acquisitive Consolidation in the pharma industry was prevalent as big, medium and small pharma players sought dealmaking. While giant pharma deals dominated the headlines this year with Pfizer/Medivation, AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV)/Stemcenrix and Abbott (NYSE: ABT)/St Jude completing multi-billion dollar deals, small and mid-market pharmas also pressed on with their ambitious expansion strategies by pursuing M&A transactions. As competition from big pharma in pursuit of blockbuster drugs increases, we can anticipate companies in the mid-market to seek bolt-on deals or outright mergers to allow them to keep up with consolidating rivals and respond to the changing dynamics of the market. thepharmaletter.com An IMAP Industry Report: GLOBAL M&A Report Pharma / Biotech 2016 imap.com

To: weatherproof who wrote (38496)	1/8/2017 2:00:00 AM
From: allatwwk	2 Recommendations Recommended By idahoranch1 patlawche11 Respond to of 63290

I had similar concerns to weatherproof and stated up here I would not commit my vote until after hearing from venBio. The concerns have not gone away, but they did diminish with the cc to the point I'm comfortable committing to the venBio slate. I wouldn't say venBio was anywhere close to 'perfect' in their answers, but they did give me a sense of competence and a sense of acting in good faith. It should be noted -- should the venBio slate be elected, the individual directors have a duty to do what is best for IMMU. Their duty in the role as directors is not to venBio. Yes, things can go wrong with venBio and its slate -- and yes, it is possible the returns will be less with venBio. But I think there is a greater chance they will look after general shareholder interests than the current management and they have the business sense sorely lacking with the BOD and mgmt teams Doc and Cindy have assembled. For me, at this point, it is not a close call.