Frederik C schreef:
Leuk om bij weg te dromen...
The stock closed at $12.06 on May 1, 1998 with a volume of about 20K shares. That was a Friday. Over the weekend the New York Times did an article about the successes and potential of one of ENMD's drugs (I don't remember which). The article was picked up by papers nationally. I read it in the Richmond paper on Sunday, went right to my computer, looked up the company and saw the price and normal volume. I thought to myself- I wished I owned some. Did I ever. On Monday May 4th the stock opened around $40. By lunch it hit it's high of $85, and settled for the day at $51.81. The volume for the day was over 23MM shares. Over the next couple years the stock went on a roller coaster, dropping as low as the teens and hitting an all-time high of just under $100 in February 2000.
preview.tinyurl.com/34bqxsEn kijk wie ook weer terug is...Abharploonta.
The patent dispute is a bump in the road. Well, maybe more like a big chuckhole in the road. INSM management seems well aware of the danger and has been proactive in the search for new production methods and new markets for I-Plex that will not be impacted by a negative legal outcome in California.
TRCA is not the issue. In the short term, additional funding and dilution are the issues. The patent dispute is a drain on funds, either by way of legal costs or damage awards, so that is a significant component of the issue. I'll concede that much to you.
Do you think that nobody these days will invest in I-Plex? There is extraordinary interest in this stock, as proven by the recent average daily volume. Bringing in more money by partnership, or the rest of the shelf offering, or by issuance of notes, should not be an insurmountable problem. The NY Times article will help immensely with that problem by giving much greater legitimacy to INSM and I-Plex.
preview.tinyurl.com/264eb3Geluk, F.