Biotech / Medical | Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: erickerickson who wrote (12120)10/22/2010 1:10:08 AM
From: li3511   of 20747
 
> unconfirmed rumor GSK will buy IMMU for $12

There's an unconfirmed rumor that LLY will buy IMMU for 216.53. It's a bigger number, so it must be more true, right?

Just remember -- it's unconfirmed as of now!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: li3511 who wrote (12147)10/22/2010 1:14:21 AM
From: idahoranch1   of 20747
 
<<Any bona fide offer of 12/share for the company would force the BOD to get an independent opinion of the value of the company, and no one on Wall Street would suddenly value it at anywhere near 12. At this point, the Board would be bound by its fiduciary duty to accept, and almost everyone (including Fidelity) would vote for it.>>

Strictly an opinion, the poison pill shows an intent to keep that kind of thing from happening. Fiduciary duty is "the legal duty of a fiduciary to act in the best interests of the beneficiary". The shareholders are the beneficiaries and you are judging what the majority of shareholders best interest is with regard to our investment in this company. It isn't $12 or $15 to me, not that I wouldn't sell some of my stock at that price for whatever reasons. I want what I think is in my best interest based on what I think the stock will be worth down the road.

Also, if someone offered $12 for the stock, the stock would approach that price and most who wanted out at that price would probably sell, say in the $11's.

The company would fight it and you would be long gone and not around to fight management on their refusal to take the offer : )

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: idahoranch1 who wrote (12146)10/22/2010 1:17:52 AM
From: li3511   of 20747
 
> LOL, you are really reaching Li, you must be bored : )

I'm actually being serious.

If the Chitibank analyst is told that Benlysta treats SLE without knocking off B cells, but E-mab does, then he's likely to view that as collateral damage.

...which it very well could be.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: idahoranch1 who wrote (12150)10/22/2010 1:26:19 AM
From: li3511   of 20747
 
> the poison pill shows an intent to keep that kind of thing from happening

The poison poll shows an intent to prevent someone from buying controlling interest in the company in the open market -- presumably at less than fair value.

But what's "fair value?" The BOD is not qualified to answer that on their own. They would have to hire experts to appraise the company -- generally an investment bank, and often the firm that did the IPO (if the company isn't too old). The firms that do such things are great at documenting "hidden value," e.g., though sum-of-parts analysis. However, it's awfully tough (and not very believable) to suddenly discover that a company is three to four times as valuable as the whole world thought it was.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: li3511 who wrote (12152)10/22/2010 7:12:35 AM
From: gonnahappensoon   of 20747
 
There is NO justifiable reason for us not to accept that offer.

The share price hasn't been that high in 10 years.

There is NO way also long term holders in the 2's and 3's wouldn't take it either. I think you are fooling yourself now.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: erickerickson10/22/2010 7:28:30 AM
   of 20747
 
Hmmmm, it seems we've discussed this completely baseless rumor far more than it deserves. Kinda sorry I made the second comment now.

What a waste of electrons.....

Erick

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Fitzhughlaw10/22/2010 7:56:53 AM
   of 20747
 
At the risk of giving further treatment to an issue that as Erick observes is likely a waste of electrons, the rights offering is purely within the discretion of the BOD. It can be rescinded or modified by the BOD at any time, but there's no vote by the shareholders if someone makes a tender offer. IMMU is a Delaware corporation and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the Delaware Chancery Court if there was a shareholder challenge to any action by the BOD, including but not limited to the rescission of the rights offering. Companies don't incorporate in Delaware and pay the attendant monstrous fees and related annual expenses because it's a convenient place to travel to or because Wilmington is a lovely city that you'd want to visit (trust me on this), but rather because it's very management friendly and the Chancery Court rules accordingly when challenges are made to the discretion afforded to corporate management.

Bottom line is that an institutional shareholder can bitch and complain, threaten to sell its shares if it doesn't get its way, or even bring suit in the Chancery Court (recall the Peoplesoft case when Oracle made a hostile play for that company), but the decision to accept or reject a tender offer and/or rescind a rights offering isn't put to a shareholder vote unless the BOD chooses to do so. Absent shareholders managing to elect a coterie of directors to the BOD that would authorize such an action, the rights offering isn't subject to any kind of shareholder democracy.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Fitzhughlaw who wrote (12155)10/22/2010 8:15:51 AM
From: gonnahappensoon   of 20747
 
They would just vote the board out. It would be pretty simple actually The G doesn't control this company anymore in reality. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I wouldn't hold your breath for an offer. If there was one...The price would spike and I would be out.

For some reason I smell a Financing Coming BTW. Now we need cash so I am not sure if done properly it is a bad thing. If you remember, I wanted to sell 10-20 Million shares 14 months ago on the release of the results....100 Million Cash in the bank and this company does look attractive for a buyout because it is a backward way of the buyer raising cash in addition to getting IMMU.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: gonnahappensoon who wrote (12156)10/22/2010 8:41:10 AM
From: me otter   of 20747
 
There are those who have better knowledge of what may or may not be in the works than any of us ( unless it is Idaho who is about to lose it completely and take the company private ). I doubt this knowledge would remain a secret from the street and, as a result, the price action and volume will tell us all whether we should sit down or wet our pants. $4.20 was the high print, if I remember correctly, so, until we get above that, I won't be reaching for a change of cloths.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Fitzhughlaw who wrote (12155)10/22/2010 8:46:59 AM
From: li3511   of 20747
 
> the rights offering is purely within the discretion of the BOD. It can be rescinded
> or modified by the BOD at any time, but there's no vote by the shareholders
> if someone makes a tender offer.

> the decision to accept or reject a tender offer and/or rescind a rights offering
> isn't put to a shareholder vote unless the BOD chooses to do so.

Counselor,

You've created a stew containing dissimilar ingredients.

Forget the rights offering -- that's irrelevant here. The question is what would/should happen if the BOD gets a bona fide offer for the corporate assets at a substantial premium to market value.

In general, under Delaware General Corporation Law, BOD is protected by the "business judgement rule." The court is not going to substitute its judgement for theirs, PROVIDED that the BOD (1) acts in good faith, (2) acts in the best interests of the corporation, (3) acts not in self-interest (the dual-loyalty issue), (4) is not wasteful, and (5) acts on an informed basis. Grobow v. Perot, 539 A.2d 180 (Del. 1988)

Please focus on that last item. The BOD must be INFORMED in order to assert this defense. Therefore, the BOD must seek professional help to determine the value of the company in order to judge whether or not it would be in the best interest of the shareholders to accept the offer.

What happens next arises from the best advice that the BOD's money can buy. If they can procure a legitimate opinion that the tender offer is inadequate, they can reject it with confidence. On the other hand, if the offer is greater than the value that their experts assign to the company, the BOD has a well known fiduciary duty to accept the offer. Indeed, once it becomes clear that sale of the company is inevitable, the BOD must enter "Revlon mode." At that point, their sole responsibility is to sell the company to the highest bidder. Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.