Question about DNDN stock. Any Bankruptcy attorneys here? No bashers/pumpers.

[Anonymous]

Why would the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (civil division) for King County, WA want to receive notices on this case? Anybody aware of any civil suits involving the local government entities?

 

[Anonymous]

Why would the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (civil division) for King County, WA want to receive notices on this case? Anybody aware of any civil suits involving the local government entities?

There is a government investigation of Mitch Gold and Dendreon that is likely a civil case according to the WSJ.

There are also some newer civil suits.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/was...cv01087/202157

Liu v. Gold et al
Defendant: David C. Stump, Pedro Granadillo, Gerardo Canet, Richard B. Brewer, Susan B. Bayh, Hans E. Bishop, Gregory T. Schiffman, Mitchell H. Gold, David L. Urdal and Douglas G. Watson
Plaintiff: Fang Liu

Case Number: 2:2014cv01087
Filed: July 17, 2014

Quintal v. Bayh et al
Defendant: Douglas G. Watson, David L. Urdal, David C. Stump, John G. Johnson, Pedro Granadillo, Dennis M. Fenton, Bogdan Dziurzynski, Susan B. Bayh, Mitchell H. Gold, Gerardo Canet and Dendreon Corporation
Plaintiff: Joseph Quintal, Jr.

Case Number: 1:2014cv00311
Filed: March 7, 2014

 

[Anonymous]

There is a government investigation of Mitch Gold and Dendreon that is likely a civil case according to the WSJ.

I knew about the two civil suits but not the government investigation. Since it is Kings County and not the federal prosecutor it must be a purely local matter, but I would love to know the allegations. The usual mix of securities law violations and fraud claims are normally not state law matters.

 

[Anonymous]

I knew about the two civil suits but not the government investigation. Since it is Kings County and not the federal prosecutor it must be a purely local matter, but I would love to know the allegations. The usual mix of securities law violations and fraud claims are normally not state law matters.

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/sec-probes-former-dendreon-ceos-stock-sales/2013-04-30

"Anyone who has followed Dendreon over the past several years remembers August 2011, when Gold pulled its sales forecast for the prostate cancer treatment. Dendreon's shares plummeted on the announcement, naturally--by a whopping 67%. The retrenchment began almost immediately, with 500 job cuts in September 2011."

When your actions cause a company to rise to a 7 billion market cap and a subsequent drop to about 100 million, then you have likely had a broad negative impact on the local economy. Maybe Kings County feels that Dendreon and its BOD that enabled Gold should be held accountable?

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/sec-probes-former-dendreon-ceos-stock-sales/2013-04-30

When your actions cause a company to rise to a 7 billion market cap and a subsequent drop to about 100 million, then you have likely had a broad negative impact on the local economy. Maybe Kings County feels that Dendreon and its BOD that enabled Gold should be held accountable?

Maybe, but they can't do anything about it. The securities markets are regulated by the federal government and state / local enforcement is pre-empted by federal law. There is precisely ONE private cause of action under securities law (so called Rule 10-b cases, and other violations can only be prosecuted by the SEC so King County ain't got a dog in that fight.

Maybe the company and certain individuals have securities violations to answer for, and the two private suits are Rule 10-b cases trying to do exactly that, but King County must have a different axe to grind.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe, but they can't do anything about it. The securities markets are regulated by the federal government and state / local enforcement is pre-empted by federal law. There is precisely ONE private cause of action under securities law (so called Rule 10-b cases, and other violations can only be prosecuted by the SEC so King County ain't got a dog in that fight.

Maybe the company and certain individuals have securities violations to answer for, and the two private suits are Rule 10-b cases trying to do exactly that, but King County must have a different axe to grind.

What do you think may be up with Kings County? What is the "ONE" cause of action KC might have? TIA.

 

[Anonymous]

What do you think may be up with Kings County? What is the "ONE" cause of action KC might have? TIA.

The one cause of action is the Rule 10-b violations I referred to, which essentially is making a material false and misleading statement in regard to a public company (or failure to disclose a material fact). Whenever you see a lawsuit by shareholders it is for violation of Rule 10-b.

I am at a loss for what King County could be looking at. Unless the county itself was an investor in DNDN via shares, they can't maintain a 10-b action. Did DNDN get remission of property taxes or other financial incentives for locating the company there? That is the only thing I can think of.

 

[Anonymous]

The one cause of action is the Rule 10-b violations I referred to, which essentially is making a material false and misleading statement in regard to a public company (or failure to disclose a material fact). Whenever you see a lawsuit by shareholders it is for violation of Rule 10-b.

I am at a loss for what King County could be looking at. Unless the county itself was an investor in DNDN via shares, they can't maintain a 10-b action. Did DNDN get remission of property taxes or other financial incentives for locating the company there? That is the only thing I can think of.

The investor scenario seems logical.

 

[Anonymous]

The deadline for a stalking horse bid is December 29. The minimum allowable stalking horse bid is $275,000,000.

Well, not so fast. Yes, the Plan Support Agreements signed with Deerfield and the other noteholders have that deadline and that minimum bid price. However, those agreements have to be accepted by the court and the Office of the US Trustee has just this afternoon filed a formal objection.

FYI, the US Trustee is a government lawyer appointed by law to represent the interests of all small creditors and shareholders who might not have their own attorneys. The gist of the objection is that the agreements signed with Deerfield and others are far too friendly and give the bondholders (who are unsecured) more rights than they are entitled to have, essentially giving them right of a secured creditor, such as payment of all legal fees incurred. The trustee also objects to the fact that there is a built-in management incentive plan after bankruptcy.

Since nothing in the plans cannot be proposed by the company in a normal adversarial proceeding, the trustee has asked that the plans and their associated provisions not be approved by the court. If the motion of the trustee is granted life gets a lot harder for Deerfield and the other creditors don't get screwed over quite as badly.

The expected objections from Glaxo and the unsecured creditors committee are still to come later today.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, not so fast. Yes, the Plan Support Agreements signed with Deerfield and the other noteholders have that deadline and that minimum bid price. However, those agreements have to be accepted by the court and the Office of the US Trustee has just this afternoon filed a formal objection.

FYI, the US Trustee is a government lawyer appointed by law to represent the interests of all small creditors and shareholders who might not have their own attorneys. The gist of the objection is that the agreements signed with Deerfield and others are far too friendly and give the bondholders (who are unsecured) more rights than they are entitled to have, essentially giving them right of a secured creditor, such as payment of all legal fees incurred. The trustee also objects to the fact that there is a built-in management incentive plan after bankruptcy.

Since nothing in the plans cannot be proposed by the company in a normal adversarial proceeding, the trustee has asked that the plans and their associated provisions not be approved by the court. If the motion of the trustee is granted life gets a lot harder for Deerfield and the other creditors don't get screwed over quite as badly.

The expected objections from Glaxo and the unsecured creditors committee are still to come later today.

Please keep posting here. Your posts are great for those of us who don't fully understand bankruptcy law and these court proceedings. You put this complicated stuff in laymen's terms and your posts are a great resource. Please keep explaining every step of the way, if possible...

 

[Anonymous]

The expected objections from Glaxo and the unsecured creditors committee are still to come later today.

Glaxo petitioned the court for more time to file objections to certain contracts, including the sale/auction procedures, and then declined to do so by the extended deadline. Why would they do this?

1. GSK decided that is was going to be too much bother and legal expense given the likely outcome, or

2. The objection filed by the US Trustee adequately addressed their points of concern, or

3. GSK's general counsel looked carefully at his astrological chart and determined that as a lawyer born under the sign of Scorpio and a judge who is a Capricorn, and with a planetary alignment of Venus rising in Jupiter, the conditions were not favorable.

 

[Anonymous]

For those keeping track, it looks like the objections to the Plan Support Agreements have largely been resolved. The company made changes at the request of the US Trustee and the committee of unsecured creditors.

The changes reduce, slightly, the advantages of Deerfield over the other creditors. The minimum stalking horse bid remains at $275 million and the deadline for the stalking horse bid remains Dec 29, with competing bids due Jan 27. Provided the judge has no heartburn with the amended agreements, the procedures should be approved at a hearing scheduled for this afternoon.

 

[Anonymous]

It's official, the judge signed the proposed order as amended. Stalking horse bids, with a minimum price of $275MM, due Dec 29, competing bids due Jan 27, auction Feb 3, confirmation hearing Feb 5. Objections from any party in interest are also due by Jan 27.

Obviously if there is no stalking horse bid or no competing bids, some of these steps will be skipped and whatever the ultimate disposition is will be presented to the court at the Feb 5 hearing.

 

[Anonymous]

It's official, the judge signed the proposed order as amended. Stalking horse bids, with a minimum price of $275MM, due Dec 29, competing bids due Jan 27, auction Feb 3, confirmation hearing Feb 5. Objections from any party in interest are also due by Jan 27.

Obviously if there is no stalking horse bid or no competing bids, some of these steps will be skipped and whatever the ultimate disposition is will be presented to the court at the Feb 5 hearing.

Excellent post. Please continue these updates. For all these years, Cafe Pharma has been the only place to go for good credible truthful information about Dendreon.

The relentless attacks on anyone with a contrarian opinion on other sites renders this the site for the truth about Dendreon.

 

[Anonymous]

Now the "fun" really starts. It is clear that the company has been for sale since October of last year with JP Morgan, Merrill-Lynch, and now Lazard involved in the marketing, so far without a single bidder at any price.

Now that the court has just announce a big post-Christmas sale, it will be interesting to see if any serious buyers emerge for this drug or whether poor manufacturing economics will keep the buyers away. The debt will be gone, the contingent liabilities will be gone, any unfavorable contracts can be jettisoned but will that be enough for a serious drug company to buy Provenge?

Regardless of which way it goes, I hope that all the employees that were not involved in screwing up this company land safety one way or another.

 

[Anonymous]

Regardless of which way it goes, I hope that all the employees that were not involved in screwing up this company land safety one way or another.

Bravo. And let's hope as well that the management and bod that were involved in what happened here is finally dealt with by the criminal justice system.

 

[Anonymous]

Now the "fun" really starts. It is clear that the company has been for sale since October of last year with JP Morgan, Merrill-Lynch, and now Lazard involved in the marketing, so far without a single bidder at any price.

Now that the court has just announce a big post-Christmas sale, it will be interesting to see if any serious buyers emerge for this drug or whether poor manufacturing economics will keep the buyers away. The debt will be gone, the contingent liabilities will be gone, any unfavorable contracts can be jettisoned but will that be enough for a serious drug company to buy Provenge?

Regardless of which way it goes, I hope that all the employees that were not involved in screwing up this company land safety one way or another.

This thing ain't sellin.' NO WAY.

And even more amazingly, leadership is more inept than ever...

The circular daisy chain of Slimevio Pacheco, Jeron "the Megalomaniac" Evans, and Dan "the Raccoon" Duran. Each one with his head up the next guy's arse (guess which head). Rest assured out of these three there is only at best one random pair of eyes blindly seeing, and I'm sure the owner of those varies day to day. And the cadaver that is Tom Amick. Where to begin? How good of a CEO could he be if he left these three clowns in charge of the asylum?

 

[Anonymous]

This thing ain't sellin.' NO WAY.

I think it will sell, but purely as an exercise in asset stripping. Somebody would have to throw A LOT of money at DNDN to keep it operating as a drug company, and there is a definite shortage of cash rich fools in the pharma world these days. As soon as the creditors figure out that the company has no value as a going concern, drug production will shut down, the hard assets will go the secondary equipment market for auction, and they will try to license the IP, probably unsuccessfully.

 

[Anonymous]

This thing ain't sellin.' NO WAY.

And even more amazingly, leadership is more inept than ever...

The circular daisy chain of Slimevio Pacheco, Jeron "the Megalomaniac" Evans, and Dan "the Raccoon" Duran. Each one with his head up the next guy's arse (guess which head). Rest assured out of these three there is only at best one random pair of eyes blindly seeing, and I'm sure the owner of those varies day to day. And the cadaver that is Tom Amick. Where to begin? How good of a CEO could he be if he left these three clowns in charge of the asylum?

Slimy as they come. When you can't earn your salary, you go into a mode of protecting those who pay it.

 

[Anonymous]

I think it will sell, but purely as an exercise in asset stripping. Somebody would have to throw A LOT of money at DNDN to keep it operating as a drug company, and there is a definite shortage of cash rich fools in the pharma world these days. As soon as the creditors figure out that the company has no value as a going concern, drug production will shut down, the hard assets will go the secondary equipment market for auction, and they will try to license the IP, probably unsuccessfully.

No kidding. Clearly the poster was referring to the fact that this puppy's getting Gordon Gekko'ed like Endicott Steel.

Blue Horseshoe likes Endicott Steel!