|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 26, 2016 21:12:23 GMT -5
Would there be any benefit from all shares being called in for the exchange, thus flushing out naked shorts? Not sure how many shares are floating around without a "real" share to back it. Probably very few. Interest rate to borrow would not be this high if the system allowed people to sell short for long periods without borrowing. It's a false dream of some here that I can't understand. Failure to delivers simply mean that they didn't happen in the specific allowed time period. It is still inappropriate if a shorter takes 4 or 5 days to deliver the share vs the 3 allowed... but that doesn't create some huge pool of fake shares. If there were really "fake" ones being generated there wouldn't be all these failure to deliver on time... the short would simply create this "fake" share and give it before it triggered a failure to deliver on time. High borrow rates and high failure to deliver on time all point to the fact that shorts are actually borrowing shares, if perhaps sometimes skirting the deadlines to get better cover price or borrow rate. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 26, 2016 21:19:56 GMT -5
To some of you that are in over $10 ps. Why not buy more at these low prices? If mannkind is purchased u take much less of a hit! Because if you buy enough to meaningfully change the relative hit you take if it say sells for $5, then you are buying enough that you lose a lot more if MNKD goes bankrupt. You're asking people why they don't buy into the gamblers tactic of doubling down forever. At least in gambling that can theoretically work if you have unlimited money and you stop when you finally win. In this case a bankruptcy means the table is shut down. The fact that one bought at $10 should not at all change whether they would buy here. To do so to "take less of a hit" is perhaps the worst investing mistake people make... and indeed is the one that has led to me being WAY over invested in MNKD. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 26, 2016 21:24:22 GMT -5
Slug Thanks for the reply. Given the recent announcement with RLS, I find this latest announcement odd. "A rumor slip out on purpose' seems plausible. Given Matt recently stated that they had done their DD on the RLS deal and came away 'quite impressed' with the backers, a reverse merger would seem unlikely, unless of course the reverse merger is with RLS. More likely there are other Pharmas coming out of the woodwork that are interested. The speculation has become insane. Wish Al would speak. Yes, it seems to be a hallmark of people highly stressed by their losses in MNKD. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 26, 2016 21:29:18 GMT -5
This could very well be a reverse merger. Receptor Life Sciences wants to go public, believes in the TS platform, gains a turn-key revolutionary diabetes treatment. The RLS announcement left me with the feeling that there was a lot more there than met the eye and was disclosed. My thought to the partnership suitability question, "How did MNKD demonstrate ongoing viability?" was that RLS did not require it, they're providing it. RLS - Al demands how much? We can't pay that MNKD - OK, then let's put out the for sale sign & see what is offered. If a BP offer meets Al's threshold, you (RLS) get last look. If not, we negotiate starting from BP's best offer RLS - Very well, hoist the sign RLS required the transfer of manufacturing capability and I'm sure they would have perpetual license to TS for their applications if MNKD goes bankrupt. That assures ongoing viability of their interests... no need to assure ongoing viability of MNKD beyond relatively short period to transfer enough of the tech. I'm sure MNKD would never have agreed to transfer manufacturing if it were not the only way of getting around this viability issue. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 27, 2016 8:57:56 GMT -5
RLS doesn't need a perpetual license to TS; they only need a license until expiration of the last patent they use. By definition, that is something less than 20 years and maybe far less than 20 years depending on the exact patents. Bankruptcy law was changed a few years ago to clarify that patent licenses were not the type of executory contracts that debtors could reject so RLS very well might have structured the deal this way due to the bankruptcy risk.
A classical reverse merger is undertaken with a nearly empty shell, one that has a bit of cash and some shareholders. The reason this is important is because there are minimum shareholder number requirements to join one of the major exchanges (number of holders, not number of shares) and a closely held company cannot come near the requirement. However, the shell company usually has to give up 95-98% of the ownership in the combined deal such that the merge partner calls all the shots. I doubt a collective ownership of 2% would be very interesting for MNKD shareholders, and there are plenty of other shell companies that can be bought for far less than $1 million.
I don't see this as a viable reverse merger. There are some other options that would leave MNKD holders with a substantial stake in the future, but those take some creative transactions and some money, and I am no sure this management team is up for one of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 27, 2016 11:15:25 GMT -5
matt... That seems correct on patents not requiring a perpetual license. Are there not other aspects such as trade secrets, etc. that might be involved in a technology that would have to be licensed for longer periods? I've been involved in licensing deals that had perpetual terms but those did involve transfer of software/firmware so maybe that has to do with copyright (though even those aren't perpetual). TS manufacturing may well involve technology embodied in software or process control algorithms.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Sept 23, 2016 1:00:04 GMT -5
Hmm... With the uproar over EpiPen, EpiHale is getting attractive. PAH is holding great potential. It's time for RLS to step up with the reverse merge. Back in Feb, Mnkd's FAQ said Mnkd has not yet considered reverse merge w/ RLS which is backed by Vulcan Capital, Bezos Expeditions. Check out Omeros backed by Vulcan Capital. www.omeros.com/pipeline/gpcr.htm |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Oct 13, 2016 20:48:56 GMT -5
Lakers or anyone, "Hmm... With the uproar over EpiPen, EpiHale is getting attractive. PAH is holding great potential. It's time for RLS to step up with the reverse merge. Back in Feb, Mnkd's FAQ said Mnkd has not yet considered reverse merge w/ RLS which is backed by Vulcan Capital, Bezos Expeditions."
Do we know for a fact that RLS is backed by Vulcan Capital. Bezos Expeditions? I don't recall hearing this before albeit I was not onboard MNKD until late March of this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 2:21:24 GMT -5
Lakers or anyone, "Hmm... With the uproar over EpiPen, EpiHale is getting attractive. PAH is holding great potential. It's time for RLS to step up with the reverse merge. Back in Feb, Mnkd's FAQ said Mnkd has not yet considered reverse merge w/ RLS which is backed by Vulcan Capital, Bezos Expeditions." Do we know for a fact that RLS is backed by Vulcan Capital. Bezos Expeditions? I don't recall hearing this before albeit I was not onboard MNKD until late March of this year. Of course we don't. And, I know lakers is speculating, even though I don't disagree with him Still not convinced about Bezos Vulcan/related, absolutely think so Reverse merger with RLS = Still a realistic possibility |
|
|
|
Post by bthomas55ep on Oct 14, 2016 6:05:54 GMT -5
Lakers or anyone, "Hmm... With the uproar over EpiPen, EpiHale is getting attractive. PAH is holding great potential. It's time for RLS to step up with the reverse merge. Back in Feb, Mnkd's FAQ said Mnkd has not yet considered reverse merge w/ RLS which is backed by Vulcan Capital, Bezos Expeditions." Do we know for a fact that RLS is backed by Vulcan Capital. Bezos Expeditions? I don't recall hearing this before albeit I was not onboard MNKD until late March of this year. Of course we don't. And, I know lakers is speculating, even though I don't disagree with him Still not convinced about Bezos Vulcan/related, absolutely think so Reverse merger with RLS = Still a realistic possibility What is a reverse merger? What do you mean - RLS buys Mannkind for some valuation? When companies merge, there is nothing reverse about it. The company remaining with the bigger stake is the buyer and the other is the seller. Will RLS IPO and use some of the proceeds to buy Mannkind? Ok, but at least $2 to $3 billion needs to be target purchase price ($4 to $6 pps). IMO |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 6:19:42 GMT -5
Of course we don't. And, I know lakers is speculating, even though I don't disagree with him Still not convinced about Bezos Vulcan/related, absolutely think so Reverse merger with RLS = Still a realistic possibility What is a reverse merger? What do you mean - RLS buys Mannkind for some valuation? When companies merge, there is nothing reverse about it. The company remaining with the bigger stake is the buyer and the other is the seller. Will RLS IPO and use some of the proceeds to buy Mannkind? Ok, but at least $2 to $3 billion needs to be target purchase price ($4 to $6 pps). IMO The MannKind CEO himself said it was not being considered at this time. What does that mean to you? |
|
