SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Biotech / MedicalGlycoGenesys GLGS (formerly SafeScience SAFS)

Previous 10 
To: tuck who wrote (53)2/4/2006 2:05:37 AM
From: zeta1961
   of 56
 
Tuck, I'm sorry but I'm glad she has ACAD..yup, CTIC still looms large in my humility reminder memories..

Perhaps it's denial that the GLGS folk could really let it get this bad but I think there may be something to salvage here..

I apologize in advance as you've witnessed these before and I haven't..but is it possible to do a reverse merger like VI technologies did to create PANC?..or are the situations so different?..

So, are you rooting for your new home team this w/e? Hope you and your bride are enjoying your new surroundings.!

Elisabeth..

PS..doing patent look-see's and found Fisher's patent of PEG 3 promoter..remember discussing who has it on the INGN thread?..it looks like he got the original patent in 2000 and was assigned to Columbia..I lost the dang thing as I was coming to SI<argh, I'll post it when I have another free minute>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: zeta1961 who wrote (54)2/4/2006 8:13:21 AM
From: rkrw
   of 56
 
VI was never bankrupt and they had an inside track on Panacos, the VI ceo was also the ceo of panacos, so the companies knew each other well :-)

I wonder how much all that fighting with Pro Pharma played a role in this? Certainly made it more difficult to get funding with that overhang. And a shame to have spent so much $ on lawyers not r&d.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: rkrw who wrote (55)2/5/2006 3:06:25 AM
From: zeta1961
   of 56
 
Rkrw..that answers my question re: are the situations very different!-g-...seriously..thanks

OK..I think I'm in denial that a Bahstohn biotech would be so silly as to spend all this investor dough on attorny fees when they knew it was a losing battle..esp. since the former CEO did indeed have patents!..I'm curious that the GLGS CEO left but the CFO has stayed..

I suppose that there are plenty of solid biotechs out there that are more worth my time for DD than this little pup!..I will keep an eye though to learn in real time how this gets handled..

Go Seattle SeaHawks!

Elisabeth

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2024 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News