|
|
Post by hammer on Oct 31, 2017 11:32:12 GMT -5
Difficult to prove and compounded by the fact the Chairman spent a million at the same time at 6/share unless you prove collusion and conspiracy occurred. Prima facie evidence does not support the suit. It cost minimal to file a lawsuit with potential for settlement. Perhaps MNKD should consider filing a suit themselves for frivolous litigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on Oct 31, 2017 11:44:36 GMT -5
Difficult to prove and compounded by the fact the Chairman spent a million at the same time at 6/share unless you prove collusion and conspiracy occurred. Prima facie evidence does not support the suit. It cost minimal to file a lawsuit with potential for settlement. Perhaps MNKD should consider filing a suit themselves for frivolous litigation. The filing is not against MNKD .. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 31, 2017 12:48:13 GMT -5
Peiple should focus in the new clinical trial..much more important This is Mannkind. We focus on what color shoes executives wear to work Wasn't Mike wearing blue suede shoes in the recent party pic. One For The Money, Two For The Show, Three To Get Ready, Now... Hmmm, we're not going yet. |
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on Oct 31, 2017 12:56:14 GMT -5
Peiple should focus in the new clinical trial..much more important This is Mannkind. We focus on what color shoes executives wear to work No wonder I was confused... I read something on a MNKD board, and assumed it was about MNKD. My bad. I couldn’t care less about Wainwright. The real question is does the MannKind CEO pants have pleats... because that would be telling. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 31, 2017 13:00:48 GMT -5
Looks shady IMO. Wonder if Mike (or anyone connected to MNKD) had anything to do with the upgrade? If so, this would be a classic "pump & dump" tactic. Doesn't look good if true. Pump and finance isn't quite the same as pump and dump. Sell side analysts by definition are going to be saying positive things about a stock and have a price target showing upside. It would be a pretty naive investor or someone that did zero due diligence to not figure out that there was an effort to push up share price for the financing. What surprised me was that it worked so amazingly well. I'm guessing really savvy investors (not me) should have anticipated the pullback. If only I had been smart enough to sell my Jan 2018 calls, would have had extra dry powder once we find solid bottom, and worked my break even point down more. |
|
|
|
Post by xanet on Oct 31, 2017 13:35:32 GMT -5
I'm guessing really savvy investors (not me) should have anticipated the pullback. If only I had been smart enough to sell my Jan 2018 calls, would have had extra dry powder once we find solid bottom, and worked my break even point down more. I'm in the same boat on the Jan 2018 calls. I kept hoping I could sell them at a smaller loss. Still hoping, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by victoria on Oct 31, 2017 13:51:12 GMT -5
I'm guessing really savvy investors (not me) should have anticipated the pullback. If only I had been smart enough to sell my Jan 2018 calls, would have had extra dry powder once we find solid bottom, and worked my break even point down more. I'm in the same boat on the Jan 2018 calls. I kept hoping I could sell them at a smaller loss. Still hoping, lol. Personally I expected a pullback but having been prepared to lose whole of my 2018 calls investment anyhow, felt 'why sell and just make less of a loss rather than stay firm and expect better by jan 2018?'. As for hc w, this is speculation but I expect the part of the firm handling the offering was separate from the investment arm and didnt communicate across the boundary. A party suing presumably would have to prove otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 31, 2017 14:19:16 GMT -5
I'm in the same boat on the Jan 2018 calls. I kept hoping I could sell them at a smaller loss. Still hoping, lol. Personally I expected a pullback but having been prepared to lose whole of my 2018 calls investment anyhow, felt 'why sell and just make less of a loss rather than stay firm and expect better by jan 2018?'. As for hc w, this is speculation but I expect the part of the firm handling the offering was separate from the investment arm and didnt communicate across the boundary. A party suing presumably would have to prove otherwise. Caveat... I am no expert in securities laws. However, I don't think there would have to be a Chinese wall in this case. Some large financial institutions have relationships with potential buyers of offerings to whom they advise in roles that convey fiduciary duties to those buyers. Then there must be a Chinese wall between the group selling the offering and the group with fiduciary responsibility to the potential buyers. It may well be the case that HC W is purely sell side. I don't think there is anything illegal about a sell side analyst in such a situation to be fully aware of an upcoming offering... and trying to raise the share price heading into it, unless making fraudulent representation to do so. If that were illegal why would it not also be illegal for Mike to have known about an upcoming financing and to go around to investor conferences hyping the company. Doesn't that just seem normal if one is trying to get new investors at a favorable share price? Grain of salt... I could be totally incorrect either on law or on the nature of HC W relationship with the buyers in the offering. |
|
|
|
Post by sweedee79 on Oct 31, 2017 15:07:28 GMT -5
Personally I expected a pullback but having been prepared to lose whole of my 2018 calls investment anyhow, felt 'why sell and just make less of a loss rather than stay firm and expect better by jan 2018?'. As for hc w, this is speculation but I expect the part of the firm handling the offering was separate from the investment arm and didnt communicate across the boundary. A party suing presumably would have to prove otherwise. Caveat... I am no expert in securities laws. However, I don't think there would have to be a Chinese wall in this case. Some large financial institutions have relationships with potential buyers of offerings to whom they advise in roles that convey fiduciary duties to those buyers. Then there must be a Chinese wall between the group selling the offering and the group with fiduciary responsibility to the potential buyers. It may well be the case that HC W is purely sell side. I don't think there is anything illegal about a sell side analyst in such a situation to be fully aware of an upcoming offering... and trying to raise the share price heading into it, unless making fraudulent representation to do so. If that were illegal why would it not also be illegal for Mike to have known about an upcoming financing and to go around to investor conferences hyping the company. Doesn't that just seem normal if one is trying to get new investors at a favorable share price? Grain of salt... I could be totally incorrect either on law or on the nature of HC W relationship with the buyers in the offering. IMO its shady... But I'm sure they've got their backsides covered or it wouldn't be such a prevalent practice... And you are correct in that if investors and traders are aware of this it can be used to their advantage.. for those not aware it can be really bad..
In the case of SGNL back in 2015 the stock rallied 100% in one day, then there was a share offering at a discount by Aegis Capital... stock toppled. and continued to sink for a year after.. from 3$ down to .45 pps... there were lots of bag holders... eventually 20 to 1 split.. and then the company was bought up or merged with another.. and I'm sure Aegis came out on top... while retail shareholders took a beating..
For MNKD it will all depend now on what Mike does with new capital and label change... But its important for retail investors to understand what these capital management firms do so you can work it to your advantage rather than getting sucked in..
|
|
|
|
Post by kc on Oct 31, 2017 18:35:06 GMT -5
I hope something special happens in the next couple of weeks that drives the share price over that $6 or $7 benchmark and proves out their recommendation to buy rating at that price.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Oct 31, 2017 18:54:40 GMT -5
I hope something special happens in the next couple of weeks that drives the share price over that $6 or $7 benchmark and proves out their recommendation to buy rating at that price. Isn't their target the standard 12 month target? And if an analyst has a price target of $7 that isn't a recommendation to buy at $7. In fact a normal assumption is that that would be where they recommend you sell. Let's give it some time before starting to question their call and price target. There is that one guy (I think has newsletter) saying $10 by end of the year, but that is really pretty extraordinary to make such a short term prediction of significant rise. Granted I have a little bit of hope every time I check MNKD each morning, but it's just allowing myself some unfounded wishful thinking. |
|
