Amendment to the SC 13G filing

[mike0475]

So mnkd no longer need Deerfield for support to key runway intact?

[kc]

I am sure the Deerfield / Flynn Felt they could make better use of the capital somewhere else that had more volatility/upside in today’s market. Not sure what this means for mnkd probably is not bad.

Mike’s confidence recently probably shows that the company is on the road to survival in the Damocles is not hanging over its head.
The restructuring job goes on but is shows that they can successfully eliminate some of the parasites around the companies feet.

[traderdennis]

Feb 14, 2018 11:16:48 GMT -5 akil said:

That explains the recent weeks of depressed prices. It was the selling pressure from the 5%+ being sold by Deerfield. Most probably stabilize back in the 3 - 4 range for a while.

Deerfield sold long before the last few weeks.  They were likely the ones who purchased 10 million shares at 6 to close an open short position opened closer to the high of 6.95

[traderdennis]

Feb 14, 2018 9:59:43 GMT -5 MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan said:

I agree about their trustworthiness, CCI. But, their relationship with MNKD was mutual benefit, so they were ok to MNKD.  Like others here have said that they provide loans, and MNKD needed that capital.  But, they are not investors, but just take stock as payment when they see clear advantage for themselves to do so. If they got $3.25/share, then they won that game. And you are certainly correct about being done with their selling pressure, Peppy. That's good.

Hey Chanhart, where did you see that all their shares traded for $3.25?

Deerfield's interest is making sure MNKD has enough cash on the books to pay their loan off. Deerfield's next move is likely to short the stock in the $4-6 dollar range and cover the short with in the next round of dilution.  I would guess in the next few weeks or so.

[akil]

13G within 10 days of the triggering reporting event.

[traderdennis]

Feb 14, 2018 11:49:42 GMT -5 akil said:

13G within 10 days of the triggering reporting event.

Only if they hold more than 10%.  Deerfield was at 5.9%.  

[akil]

I stand corrected. They were already at 0 as of 9/30/2017. This was a year end notification due on 2/15 (45 days after year end) because they were a 5% owner during the year.

But, no, they did not sell during the October gold rush.

[mnholdem]

I'm glad somebody read the document. The date of transaction was in 2017...nothing new here, IMO.

[jonny80s]

In another month they are going to be 50% stake holders and then they will squeeze the hell out of it.... just my guess.

[dh4mizzou]

Feb 14, 2018 12:58:58 GMT -5 jonny80s said:

In another month they are going to be 50% stake holders and then they will squeeze the hell out of it.... just my guess.

[mytakeonit]

kite .. kite .. kite And I thought I had trained you so well. Poor lost child ...

[ptass]

Feb 14, 2018 12:24:21 GMT -5 mnholdem said:

I'm glad somebody read the document. The date of transaction was in 2017...nothing new here, IMO.

[ptass]

I find it concerning since Deerfield would have a better understanding of the company's potential than most and chose to sell. I would take this as a poor vote of confidence. I know others will say this is their business model but still.

[hammer]

So all this time Deerfield has been taking shares for debt and now they own Zero. Why? Quite frankly, I haven't been able to explain most things that happen with MNKD but I ll take a another stab. Conventional wisdom prior to this filing was that Deerfield was taking shares because they were in the know and expected share price increase would offset any gains expected by debt repayment. This is obviously false reasoning now.
Is it possible that Deerfield had a very large short position and not enough available shares to close it out? So in actuality they needed those shares to close their short position. Make any sense? For the detectives on the board does their sale date jive with the purchase by Kresa? Does their filing date coincide with changes in short sale stats for that period?
The only thing I dont like is they hold no shares at all.

[ptass]

Does anyone know how many shares Al's Foundation still owns? Hopefully a lot.