Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 14:27:11 GMT -5
What good would that do? Even if MNKD executed the R/S today there are not 10 business days remaining between now and March 13. So either way, MNKD technically needs an extension. You make a good point. It appears that by waiting until March 1, the company has already passed the threshold of self-correction assuming a R/S is implemented if 10 trading days above $1 is required. Another bungle by management? Who would have thought? So we do a RS and get delisted? Perhaps. Just when you think it can't get any crazier at MNKD...
|
|
|
Post by saxcmann on Mar 1, 2017 14:29:37 GMT -5
What good would that do? Even if MNKD executed the R/S today there are not 10 business days remaining between now and March 13. So either way, MNKD technically needs an extension. You make a good point. It appears that by waiting until March 1, the company has already passed the threshold of self-correction assuming a R/S is implemented if 10 trading days above $1 is required. Another bungle by management? Who would have thought? A R/S is coming. No question about it. Only question now is when they'll dilute?...immediately or wait until June. Why wait if no news coming? I'm expecting dilution sooner than later. Hope I'm wrong...
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Mar 1, 2017 14:48:42 GMT -5
I'll save you the time. This was the post.
Well, here is something new. I received an emailed reply this morning from the IR Dept of MannKind Corporation:
"MannKind does not meet the equity standard requirement for Nasdaq Capital Markets, therefore, the Company does not have the option to phase down to that exchange."
---
What I posted yesterday may be accurate: "...according to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A)(i), The Company may also request a hearing to remain on The Nasdaq Global Market pursuant to the Rule 5800 Series."
In that event, MNKD needs only get approval from NASDAQ of a plan to remedy their non-compliance related to share price. The reverse-split is very likely a key part of the plan presented by MannKind to regain compliance.
Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/7262/nasdaq-grant-extension#ixzz4a6PhPnZh
That's really interesting. I thought that MNKD had the option of transferring to the Nasdaq Capital Market. So yes, the company can go through the process of a hearing, etc. of getting an extension, in the hope that either in the time it takes to get the hearing or in the extension period (if they get the extension) that MNKD can solve the deficiency. If (eventually after an extension or no extension) the NASDAQ issues a delisting notice, MNKD can still request another hearing and they'll have 180 _more_ days to play it out. I just don't think that MNKD will play out that much drama, but I have no crystal ball. My guess is that we'll see a R/S soon, followed immediately by a capital raise, but that's just a guess and I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by oldfishtowner on Mar 1, 2017 14:50:13 GMT -5
You make a good point. It appears that by waiting until March 1, the company has already passed the threshold of self-correction assuming a R/S is implemented if 10 trading days above $1 is required. Another bungle by management? Who would have thought? So we do a RS and get delisted? Perhaps. Just when you think it can't get any crazier at MNKD... Could be "another bungle" or may be an indication that management decided to go for an extension. In the latter case, it may not be as crazy as it seems.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 1, 2017 15:10:11 GMT -5
What good would that do? Even if MNKD executed the R/S today there are not 10 business days remaining between now and March 13. So either way, MNKD technically needs an extension. Even if MNKD does a reverse split today, it will be getting a delisting notice for the reason you stated. So long as the hearing is requested within seven days, the delisting is suspended pending the outcome of the hearing, and during that hearing process the company can pull the trigger on the reverse split (or commit to doing so). What is strange is if the reverse split had been authorized last week then the company would have had time to accumulate the ten consecutive business days with a bid above $1, instead they waited until it was impossible to do so. Now the decision of whether to stay listed is in the hands of two compliance lawyers at NASDAQ (they comprise the hearing panel) and that panel has the discretion to go either way. Why give them the chance to say no when you could have had the vote a week earlier and obtained a definite yes?
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Mar 1, 2017 15:16:12 GMT -5
What good would that do? Even if MNKD executed the R/S today there are not 10 business days remaining between now and March 13. So either way, MNKD technically needs an extension. Even if MNKD does a reverse split today, it will be getting a delisting notice for the reason you stated. So long as the hearing is requested within seven days, the delisting is suspended pending the outcome of the hearing, and during that hearing process the company can pull the trigger on the reverse split (or commit to doing so). What is strange is if the reverse split had been authorized last week then the company would have had time to accumulate the ten consecutive business days with a bid above $1, instead they waited until it was impossible to do so. Now the decision of whether to stay listed is in the hands of two compliance lawyers at NASDAQ (they comprise the hearing panel) and that panel has the discretion to go either way. Why give them the chance to say no when you could have had the vote a week earlier and obtained a definite yes? This is like a soap opera. Now multiple people think management is stupid enough to risk delisting by delaying the meeting.... I gotta ask then why are you long Mnkd? You don't think Mnkd was already in constant contact with Nasdaq about this ordeal as was stated in the email correspondence?
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Mar 1, 2017 15:38:49 GMT -5
Even if MNKD does a reverse split today, it will be getting a delisting notice for the reason you stated. So long as the hearing is requested within seven days, the delisting is suspended pending the outcome of the hearing, and during that hearing process the company can pull the trigger on the reverse split (or commit to doing so). What is strange is if the reverse split had been authorized last week then the company would have had time to accumulate the ten consecutive business days with a bid above $1, instead they waited until it was impossible to do so. Now the decision of whether to stay listed is in the hands of two compliance lawyers at NASDAQ (they comprise the hearing panel) and that panel has the discretion to go either way. Why give them the chance to say no when you could have had the vote a week earlier and obtained a definite yes? This is like a soap opera. Now multiple people think management is stupid enough to risk delisting by delaying the meeting.... I gotta ask then why are you long Mnkd? You don't think Mnkd was already in constant contact with Nasdaq about this ordeal as was stated in the email correspondence? Ok, I'll bite. I'm long because I'm looking at 90% losses in my investments. Why bother selling for a measly 10% when I can hold and hope that maybe, just maybe, they actually see some success and turn the share price around. I actually happen to like what they're doing now and if they can't sell Afrezza here, I believe it won't be sold at all. In terms of confidence in management, are we talking about the same management that initially failed to inform shareholders of the delisting notice, as required by SEC rules? Are we talking about the same management that surrendered complete control, at arguably terrible terms, to an outside entity to market their newly approved drug? Or are we talking about the management that at conference calls and public events, in front of the investing world,begged for someone to collaborate with them, assured the world that the impending R/S was because we are in a "position of strength", or ended up hiring, then un-hiring a new CEO because of non-complete clause that should have been discovered during the initial job offering if they had actually done their homework? Management over the last two years has been terrible, with occasional flashes of competence (Amgen hires and Sanofi settlement). Aside from those isolated incidents, no, there's not much to give me confidence in their ability to get the job done. Do I think they intentionally dropped the ball on delaying the R/S vote and are playing a game of chicken with the Nasdaq at the expense of shareholders? No. Do I believe they could have done it unintentionally because they have proven themselves to be completely prone to doing so? You bet ya.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 1, 2017 16:21:26 GMT -5
This is like a soap opera. Now multiple people think management is stupid enough to risk delisting by delaying the meeting.... I gotta ask then why are you long Mnkd? You don't think Mnkd was already in constant contact with Nasdaq about this ordeal as was stated in the email correspondence? I don't think they would be deliberately that stupid, but management has been unacceptably sloppy with other legal and compliance issues so they might have gotten there just the same. I have managed multiple publicly traded companies, and I have had significant dealings with the NASDAQ listing qualifications group. They are mostly securities law lawyers and trying to get a straight answer out of them is sometimes akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. I have found them to be less than 100% transparent, frequently arbitrary, and bordering on capricious at times. Largely it depends on which regulator you are dealing with; some are very helpful and some are anything but helpful. When a registrant has a clear path to continued listing and they don't take it in favor of one that puts the decision in the hands of the listing panel, that is reckless in my opinion. As has been noted, the company doesn't have the required shareholder equity to meet the initial listing standards for the NASDAQ Capital Market, but what hasn't been said is that they lack the required shareholder equity to meet the standard for any NASDAQ market. The deficiency is not minor, it is on the order of $200 million, and if the listing panel is looking for an objective reason to deny continued listing, they have one. Why give them the opportunity to even consider the matter when moving the voting date a few days earlier would have prevented the need, and cost, of a hearing. It will probably turn out fine, but it could have been definite.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 1, 2017 16:29:23 GMT -5
This is like a soap opera. Now multiple people think management is stupid enough to risk delisting by delaying the meeting.... I gotta ask then why are you long Mnkd? You don't think Mnkd was already in constant contact with Nasdaq about this ordeal as was stated in the email correspondence? I don't think they would be deliberately that stupid, but management has been unacceptably sloppy with other legal and compliance issues so they might have gotten there just the same. I have managed multiple publicly traded companies, and I have had significant dealings with the NASDAQ listing qualifications group. They are mostly securities law lawyers and trying to get a straight answer out of them is sometimes akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. I have found them to be less than 100% transparent, frequently arbitrary, and bordering on capricious at times. Largely it depends on which regulator you are dealing with; some are very helpful and some are anything but helpful. When a registrant has a clear path to continued listing and they don't take it in favor of one that puts the decision in the hands of the listing panel, that is reckless in my opinion. As has been noted, the company doesn't have the required shareholder equity to meet the initial listing standards for the NASDAQ Capital Market, but what hasn't been said is that they lack the required shareholder equity to meet the standard for any NASDAQ market. The deficiency is not minor, it is on the order of $200 million, and if the listing panel is looking for an objective reason to deny continued listing, they have one. Why give them the opportunity to even consider the matter when moving the voting date a few days earlier would have prevented the need, and cost, of a hearing. It will probably turn out fine, but it could have been definite. I found this. (posted by Derek2) The company simply has to come back into continuing listing compliance. There are 3 different standards, and the company has to comply with only one, and one of the three simply looks at the market value of securities, (plus the $1 bid price, of course) and does not concern itself with shareholder equity or revenue.
listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/continuedguide.pdf Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/6235/nasdaq-share-price-compliance-notice?page=1#ixzz4a70cZW1I
Let me know if Matt has lost his credibility.
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Mar 1, 2017 16:50:33 GMT -5
I don't think they would be deliberately that stupid, but management has been unacceptably sloppy with other legal and compliance issues so they might have gotten there just the same. I have managed multiple publicly traded companies, and I have had significant dealings with the NASDAQ listing qualifications group. They are mostly securities law lawyers and trying to get a straight answer out of them is sometimes akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. I have found them to be less than 100% transparent, frequently arbitrary, and bordering on capricious at times. Largely it depends on which regulator you are dealing with; some are very helpful and some are anything but helpful. When a registrant has a clear path to continued listing and they don't take it in favor of one that puts the decision in the hands of the listing panel, that is reckless in my opinion. As has been noted, the company doesn't have the required shareholder equity to meet the initial listing standards for the NASDAQ Capital Market, but what hasn't been said is that they lack the required shareholder equity to meet the standard for any NASDAQ market. The deficiency is not minor, it is on the order of $200 million, and if the listing panel is looking for an objective reason to deny continued listing, they have one. Why give them the opportunity to even consider the matter when moving the voting date a few days earlier would have prevented the need, and cost, of a hearing. It will probably turn out fine, but it could have been definite. I found this. (posted by Derek2) The company simply has to come back into continuing listing compliance. There are 3 different standards, and the company has to comply with only one, and one of the three simply looks at the market value of securities, (plus the $1 bid price, of course) and does not concern itself with shareholder equity or revenue.
listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/continuedguide.pdf Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/6235/nasdaq-share-price-compliance-notice?page=1#ixzz4a70cZW1I
Let me know if Matt has lost his credibility.
My post presumed that MNKD could get the SP above $1 before the 180 days. If they can't, they'll need to convince the NASDAQ that they'll be able to (within another 180 days) meet _Initial_ listing requirements, which are more stringent, and which require a shareholder equity test that MNKD won't pass until they make $200M in profit. Personally, Matt, Agedhippie _and_ MNHoldem all have a lot of credibility in my books, despite not always agreeing with each other (or with me)
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 1, 2017 16:57:57 GMT -5
well then my math was wrong
|
|
|
Post by mango on Mar 1, 2017 17:35:32 GMT -5
This is like a soap opera. Now multiple people think management is stupid enough to risk delisting by delaying the meeting.... I gotta ask then why are you long Mnkd? You don't think Mnkd was already in constant contact with Nasdaq about this ordeal as was stated in the email correspondence? I don't think they would be deliberately that stupid, but management has been unacceptably sloppy with other legal and compliance issues so they might have gotten there just the same. I have managed multiple publicly traded companies, and I have had significant dealings with the NASDAQ listing qualifications group. They are mostly securities law lawyers and trying to get a straight answer out of them is sometimes akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. I have found them to be less than 100% transparent, frequently arbitrary, and bordering on capricious at times. Largely it depends on which regulator you are dealing with; some are very helpful and some are anything but helpful. When a registrant has a clear path to continued listing and they don't take it in favor of one that puts the decision in the hands of the listing panel, that is reckless in my opinion. As has been noted, the company doesn't have the required shareholder equity to meet the initial listing standards for the NASDAQ Capital Market, but what hasn't been said is that they lack the required shareholder equity to meet the standard for any NASDAQ market. The deficiency is not minor, it is on the order of $200 million, and if the listing panel is looking for an objective reason to deny continued listing, they have one. Why give them the opportunity to even consider the matter when moving the voting date a few days earlier would have prevented the need, and cost, of a hearing. It will probably turn out fine, but it could have been definite. Apparently someone has never nailed Jello to the wall. Kinda easy.
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Mar 1, 2017 18:05:30 GMT -5
This is like a soap opera. Now multiple people think management is stupid enough to risk delisting by delaying the meeting.... I gotta ask then why are you long Mnkd? You don't think Mnkd was already in constant contact with Nasdaq about this ordeal as was stated in the email correspondence? Ok, I'll bite. I'm long because I'm looking at 90% losses in my investments. Why bother selling for a measly 10% when I can hold and hope that maybe, just maybe, they actually see some success and turn the share price around. I actually happen to like what they're doing now and if they can't sell Afrezza here, I believe it won't be sold at all. In terms of confidence in management, are we talking about the same management that initially failed to inform shareholders of the delisting notice, as required by SEC rules? Are we talking about the same management that surrendered complete control, at arguably terrible terms, to an outside entity to market their newly approved drug? Or are we talking about the management that at conference calls and public events, in front of the investing world,begged for someone to collaborate with them, assured the world that the impending R/S was because we are in a "position of strength", or ended up hiring, then un-hiring a new CEO because of non-complete clause that should have been discovered during the initial job offering if they had actually done their homework? Management over the last two years has been terrible, with occasional flashes of competence (Amgen hires and Sanofi settlement). Aside from those isolated incidents, no, there's not much to give me confidence in their ability to get the job done. Do I think they intentionally dropped the ball on delaying the R/S vote and are playing a game of chicken with the Nasdaq at the expense of shareholders? No. Do I believe they could have done it unintentionally because they have proven themselves to be completely prone to doing so? You bet ya. I will only re-invest when the reverse is done, the share price makes its anticipated decline, following dilution and then, only if prescriptions make a definite turn around. I believe it could be a while.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Mar 1, 2017 19:00:47 GMT -5
There are people taking the other side of that trade and buying now. And buying a lot! I'm not one of them, but it will be interesting to see what happens in the next two months.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 1, 2017 19:57:14 GMT -5
I will only re-invest when the reverse is done, the share price makes its anticipated decline, following dilution and then, only if prescriptions make a definite turn around. I believe it could be a while. That's my position. I am almost entirely out at the moment. Between MNKD and DVAX I have decided biotech is not really my strength! Both great products but just keep hitting barriers.
|
|