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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: celeryroot.com who wrote (17819)	3/24/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: Flagrante Delictu	Respond to of 32384

Celeryroot, OFF TOPIC. >> study off the oval office << Hilarious! Bernie

To: celeryroot.com who wrote (17819)	3/24/1998 3:56:00 PM
From: tonyt	Respond to of 32384

Here's an interesting article: Biotechnology Financier Blech Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud Dow Jones Newswires David Blech, once a highflying biotechnology financier, pleaded guilty Tuesday to both a 1994 fraud on his customers and Bear Stearns Cos. and a more recent trading scheme that took place after he was already in trouble with the law. Mr. Blech pleaded guilty to two counts of securities fraud in federal court in New York. He admitted to executing a series of sham and unauthorized sales of biotechnology securities to deceive Bear Stearns into continuing to provide margin credit and clearing services to his firm D. Blech & Co., which collapsed in September 1994. Mr. Blech also admitted that last November and January -- months after he had been indicted on the earlier scheme, and long after D. Blech's collapse had stirred controversy and investigations -- he made substantial purchases of stock in GeneMedicine Inc., Escalon Medical Corp. and Homecom Communications Inc. without having the assets to pay for those purchases. Prosecutors say that caused a total of $3 million in losses to several brokerages. Mr. Blech faces a maximum of 20 years in prison when he is sentenced on Sept. 15. Mr. Blech said he "did some very wrong and stupid things" in an effort to save his firm in 1994. As for the more recent improper trading, he said, he engaged in that because he was "obsessed" with the idea that the three companies whose stock he bought were undervalued. U.S. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy accepted Mr. Blech's guilty plea, even though he had last year rejected two attempts by Mr. Blech to plead guilty to the 1994 scheme. Judge Duffy had voiced concerns that Mr. Blech wasn't competent to plead guilty because he suffers from manic-depressive illness, but the judge said Tuesday that he was satisfied that the latest plea should be accepted. In its heyday, D. Blech & Co. was a leading underwriter and market-maker for small, start-up biotechnology companies. But a biotechnology bear market left the firm unable to meet its minimum capital requirements, and it closed its doors on Sept. 22, 1994, a day still known as "Blech Thursday" in the biotechnology field. Stocks underwritten by the firm plunged as a result.

To: celeryroot.com who wrote (17819)	3/24/1998 5:21:00 PM
From: Flagrante Delictu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

Celeryroot, A scenario for today's put trading in LGND. If one noticed that bio stocks tend to get whacked when the FDA rejects their NDA, and conversely, the stocks seem to rally after NDA approval, today's action in the LGND puts may be most logical, if one is certain the FDA decision will be after May expiration & before Aug. expiration. Specifically, by either first buying 8400 shares of LGND or sending an order into the pit seeking to buy 8400 LGND at the market & simultaneously buying 84 Aug 15 puts at $1.25, a most interesting hedge was set up. The sale of the 84 May 15 puts reimburses the buyer of the stock plus the Aug. 15 puts most of the cost of those Aug.15 puts. He now owns the stock & the Aug. 15 puts & is short the May 15 puts. Since LGND won't get its NDA in to the FDA until around 4/1/98, it is plausible to assume no decision by the FDA until after May expiration & the concomitant expiration of his May put liability. It is not unlikely that they will decide by Aug. expiration. If so, he's protected vs. loss by the Aug. 15 puts, at a minimal net cost & if the stock does or doesn't run up several points, his cost of protection was minimal.Bernie