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 : Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (93)	4/10/1998 12:10:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4974

Rick, Should we be looking at VMRX as a serious investment? I've never more than glanced at it before. Next time you come to the conclusion that a biotech is committing suicide, why don't you let us all know too? Mostly they just seem to be half accidental death, half self-inflicted wounds. An actual death is pretty rare - they mostly linger on for ever. By the way, do see you (deservedly) made it onto the list of the most bookmarked SI people: Message 3958853 Looks like you are the only biotech'er on the list - demonstrates the good sense of the SI biotech community! Peter

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (93)	4/11/1998 12:25:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 4974

[ CVAS, BVF ups stake ] ITEM 3. SOURCE AND AMOUNT OF FUNDS OR OTHER CONSIDERATION. Since February 8, 1998, Partners, in its capacity as general partner of BVF, has purchased on behalf of such limited partnership an aggregate number of 248,579 shares of the Stock for an aggregate consideration of $1,110,278.50, utilizing funds provided by BVF from its working capital pursuant to the terms of its limited partnership agreement with Partners. In addition, Partners, in its capacity as investment manager with respect to certain managed accounts, has purchased on behalf of such managed accounts an aggregate number of 389,308 shares of the Stock for an aggregate consideration of $1,727,254.25, utilizing funds under management by Partners pursuant to investment management agreements between Partners and such managed accounts. Item 5 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: ITEM 5. INTEREST IN SECURITIES OF THE ISSUER. (a) BVF beneficially owns 934,606 shares of the Stock, Partners beneficially owns 1,928,143 shares of the Stock, and BVF Inc. beneficially owns 1,928,143 shares of the Stock, approximately 6.7%, 13.8% and 13.8%, respectively, of the aggregate number of shares outstanding as of March 18, 1998 (as reported in Corvas' annual statement on Form 10-K).

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (93)	4/11/1998 12:02:00 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4974

Rick; I respect your judgement and have appreciated your wisdom, but seems perhaps I am on the opposite side of the fence on the CPRO/VMRX issue. At least from a stock position as I have CPRO from an old broker recommendation. If I understand your post you have little faith that CPRO will prevail - correct? The first trial as you noted CPRO came out a winner only to lose in round two. You talk of a second jury trial in round two, however I am of the understanding that no jury heard this but the original verdict was overturned by the judge. Is this understanding wrong Now to round three, the appeals. Will this be heard by a jury or a judge and if a judge will it be the same as heard the case? From a case law position the patent issues is very interesting but will it rule the day? Surely there is also some question on this issue. On the side of CPRO one must consider their continued good luck with fast approval as well as Baxters bad luck in getting their product approved - will more trials be needed? Is not Baxters product significantly different so that phase three trials would be expected? Seems to me that Baxter wants to have their product approved without having to go through phase three trials relying instead on the fact that CPRO has already jumped through the hoops. Are there not people alive today because CPRO worked their buts off to get this product on the market while Baxter etal. sat on their patents and buts? Tell that to a jury and you get the original verdict. To say this is an interesting case is an understatement. However, it is too bad they can't stop wasting money and time and get back to improving medicine. These comments are from following CPRO and in no way reflex any thoughts on VMRX. Maybe I should hedge my position and pick up a little VMRX? Thanks Rick for any comments you make to these thoughts. Steve