Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Free
Message: Re: Finally! Response from IR------ J's - SGE - patientman
5
Dec 16, 2008 10:09AM
4
Dec 16, 2008 10:22AM
1
Dec 16, 2008 10:26AM
2
Dec 16, 2008 10:58AM
2
Dec 16, 2008 11:30AM
4
Dec 16, 2008 11:33AM
6
Dec 17, 2008 05:07AM
1
Dec 17, 2008 05:08AM

All I'm saying is that I don't believe there is the threat of accusation of insider trading when the officers of the company are trading on a possibility, and not an absolute (this assuming there is anything in that MOU, and they know its details). That's the difference - if it were known to be an absolute slam dumk that the PTO will re-cert the patents unchanged, then I believe it would be insider trading. But this simply is not the case. The PTO decision is a huge "IF". Just as in that analogy - just because you have a shot doesn't mean you're going to win, or just because there is a possibility doesn't mean it will happen. That uncertainty I believe would make the difference on whether there is insider trading.

Now, is it material (assuming there's something there) or, better asked, under the circumstances, would PTSC have to report? You have a Confidentiality Clause, NDAs, and an Agreement endorsed by the Federal Court inclusive of the NDAs and Agreement. Might they escape, or be barred from, reporting based on these circumstances? And keep in mind the only thing that IMO would be considered material, if anything, would be the possible dollars involved (the licenses were reported). POSSIBLE DOLLARS, not absolute, for sure dollars. When was the last time you saw an 8-K stating that maybe, just maybe if everything goes exactly right in an uncontrolable environment (PTO), a company might get some money? I've seen some that approach that, but it's rare IMO, and usually based on something that's going to hit the public domain anyway (which is probably why they reported it).

Now, assuming it's you that stated that one of your attorney buddies said the MOU was about the end of litigation/no further recourse, I suggest you consult another that has a clue. But do ask them about our circumstance - you have nothing to lose and may provide a good laugh, as you suggest. Nothing wrong with that! Bottom line question: "Do you have to report MAYBE future revenues, when the MAYBE is controlled by a (government) third party?".

But I conceed to your desire to keep things real. This has been discussed to death, and to keep things perfectly clear, we're only talking about a possibility - just a possibility - and one that won't matter all that much, probably, if we prevail with the PTO. And if we fail with the PTO, it probably won't matter.

SGE



Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply