Expect Lawsuits

Discussion in 'Dendreon' started by Anonymous, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Fund managers will start suing us. We have to spend more of the money we don't have for lawyers.
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Lawsuits are the least of our worries. How long till a GSK, Pfizer, or SA decide to pick us off and round out their oncology portfolio. Even at 2.5 to 3B we are a bargain. Cash flow, a pipeline (kind of) and then throw in manufacturing we are a prime target. Plus the fact that we have a horrid senior management team makes it damn near impossible for a board to dodge a serious takeover attempt.
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    No worries about take overs. No one wants to take over a sinking (or rather sunken) ship. Especially one with a technology that costs $93,000 and adds an average of 3 months of life. Honestly I think DNDN has managed to do the impossible-everythingc they've done has been the wrong move especially if consider they laid off GP but kept JV.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Expect lawsuits from a number of the people they laid off. They made a couple massive mistakes with a few of the people they laid off (hint: Look up ERISA). Not surprising since they had no head council for 3 months. DNDN is going down in flames
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It's going to be more than Fund Managers. You also have the shareholder's class action suit, a potential whistle blowers law suit (DNDN got rid of their chief compliance officer with no immediate plans to replace) Lawsuits for wrongfull termination (ie people on disability who were laid off) and a potential hostile workplace environment/wrongful termination lawsuit due to the vast number of people put on PIPs (Undoubtedly an attempt to get people to leave of their own accord or get fired without paying out severance packages. Of course. implicit in this is that DNDN knew MONTHS ago that they were in fiscal trouble.

    I worked for one other company as corrupt and dysfunctional which did a lot of the same things as Dendreon (Misinformation concerning earnings, rampant insider trading. Transactions taking place off the books etc.) and Dendreon is unravelling in the exact same way this other company did. Eventually the entire company imploded within a year. The technology was bought out by someone else and those employees left were all let go.

    It's only going to get worse.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It's getting worse. You were right all the way back in September.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Sincerely, for the people in the trenches still working there, I wish I had been wrong. In another thread, someone mentioned in passing that there were people who committed suicide after having uprooted themselves and investing everthing in DNDN. I realize this is in no way my fault, but I still feel horrible that people reached that level of pain and desperation
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    One of the best and most prophetic posts on the board.
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Worse by the day!!
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Plus lawsuits from 1000+ patients who got the drug- have you guys not seen the JNCI article?
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Could you attach a link? Thanks!
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    That article is complete junk science crap written by an ex Hedge Fund employee.

    Look at the New England Jouranl of Medicine article on Provenge instead.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I'm not sure about this story either.

    Marie L. Huber, Laura Haynes, Chris Parker, Peter Iversen

    Which one is from the hedge fund?

    Thanks in advance
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Marie L. Huber

    She worked for P. Schoenfeld Asset Management from Jan. 2007 to Jan 2011.

    Before that she worked for Forstman and Company.
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Some of the authors are actually well respected and accomplished but their article was a commentary which brought up earlier concerns which have already been addressed and discounted by most prostate cancer researchers and immunologists. Expect to see letters from some very reputable folks in the next issue of JNCI.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I beg to differ on the "addressed and discounted": that pillock Gulley with his irrelevant point about 2% of lymphocytes being in the blood, and whoever it was from Dendreon that said placebo patients lived as long as placebos from other trials (yeah, they did, but they SHOULD have lived much LONGER)... they didn't "address and discount" anything at all.

    I expect to see letters full of mischaracterizations and obfuscation, and I hope the JNCI authors have the time to respond properly. "Reputable" folks are so often wrong, i'd not hang my hat on that...
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    No need to "beg to differ," there are many points of views about Provenge. There is also no need to describe James Gulley as a "pillock." He has done much for immunotherapy and is a driving force for trying to find an effective tool for fighting prostate cancer. His involvement with Prostvac demonstrates that he is not limiting his efforts only to Provenge.

    There are reputable folks on both sides of this discussion.
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Indeed. No need. but i just learned the word, and it seemed apropos. What he did at the CMS meeting was "pillock-like", not he as a person necessarily (i've never met the guy, so i'm only justified in having an opinion on the various actions of his i've borne witness to). He single-handedly shut down a very legitimate question with such a nonsensical, utterly, provably irrelevant point though, that in my opinion he did both science and prostate cancer patients a great injustice that day.

    Time will reveal the truth, and I hope the defenders of Provenge know that the more vocal they are, and the less they try to engage in understanding and debating the TRUTH and FACTS, in stead of defending a position they took previously when important data was hidden from them, the worse they will look when the truth comes to light, and the worse the history books will remember them (and i'm sure there will be many books written about this debacle). Scientists should INVITE debate, not shut it down.

    There's nothing wrong in thinking one thing today, and finding out new information tomorrow and changing your mind based on incorporating new information. In fact, those that do so, and assist in the enlightenment of others, end up looking the best of all..... but this is a reward available only to those very few that are intelligent enough to choose the path of truth-seeking.

    Definitely not a path where you'll find any pillocks :)
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Unless I had unequivocal proof that taking all those squillions of lymphocytes away from old people with metastatic cancer is TOTALLY SAFE, I think i'd be _veeeeery_ careful defending a treatment that loses squillions of lymphocytes.