|
|
Post by jckrdu on Jan 8, 2016 2:47:06 GMT
Thanks Matt for the background but I will not tender. To say Astella not going to raise the offer because If the did they would have done it after the first round. That same logic I say if they walked they would have walked already. I am ready to go down with the ship. Golden - FYI, there's a term in the agreement that requires Astellas to extend the offer. They can't walk yet. The language was posted somewhere.... its in the agreement. Astellas is required to extend if they don't get 51%, but they don't have to extend past May 9th. |
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Jan 8, 2016 3:12:10 GMT
RE: GAMCO -- the phrase that comes to mind for me is "insider information." I cannot think of another reason they would buy to this extent for $67K profit.
RE: Matt Vincent -- OF COURSE Paul gave him the okay to talk to shareholders, because he is in favor of the buyout.Paul has done a terrible job managing this company and ridiculous contradictory statements to this offer, saying he "Joined the company when it is just about to breakout;" saying repeatedly the patent protection is solid against anyone else working in this field, the values of RPE. Someone should have been fired over the trial criteria to screw up this bad. For sure, but that doesn't mean his synopsis of the situation isn't correct. If his synopsis is correct, then a big f u to people like Bullard that assisted in the slow negative beat down then, right? |
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Jan 8, 2016 4:13:18 GMT
For sure, but that doesn't mean his synopsis of the situation isn't correct. If his synopsis is correct, then a big f u to people like Bullard that assisted in the slow negative beat down then, right? And I'm not saying that management have been perfect. But if people are to take what Matt said seriously, it's really a great shame that there are people out there with an agenda to brake companies. These products and IP going to hands off shore is such a shame. What a waste. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Jan 8, 2016 5:56:39 GMT
For sure, but that doesn't mean his synopsis of the situation isn't correct. If his synopsis is correct, then a big f u to people like Bullard that assisted in the slow negative beat down then, right? You mean when Bullard wrote about Phase 1 data being pretty good and that it should pave the way for a broader Phase 2 trial, but that one cowboy wasn't going to be enough for an expedited trial or for BP to be interested? It seems like exactly what Matt said in his conversation with Belas. |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Jan 8, 2016 6:00:59 GMT
Bullard and Mako are completely different, if that is what you are getting at.
|
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Jan 8, 2016 8:03:03 GMT
If his synopsis is correct, then a big f u to people like Bullard that assisted in the slow negative beat down then, right? You mean when Bullard wrote about Phase 1 data being pretty good and that it should pave the way for a broader Phase 2 trial, but that one cowboy wasn't going to be enough for an expedited trial or for BP to be interested? It seems like exactly what Matt said in his conversation with Belas. No. Specifically the article he wrote that speculated cataract surgery was the cause of visual gains. He went out if his way to discredit the integrity of the ocat trial in that article. His brush might not have been as wide as Mako's, but he painted the same colour. Either way you look at it, he helped with the erosion in that article and he must be proud to see the IP changing hands. Well done. *slow clap* |
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Jan 8, 2016 8:47:56 GMT
You mean when Bullard wrote about Phase 1 data being pretty good and that it should pave the way for a broader Phase 2 trial, but that one cowboy wasn't going to be enough for an expedited trial or for BP to be interested? It seems like exactly what Matt said in his conversation with Belas. No. Specifically the article he wrote that speculated cataract surgery was the cause of visual gains. He went out if his way to discredit the integrity of the ocat trial in that article. His brush might not have been as wide as Mako's, but he painted the same colour. Either way you look at it, he helped with the erosion in that article and he must be proud to see the IP changing hands. Well done. *slow clap* Give me a break. Seriously. He wrote an article giving a contrarian point of view as to why one person in a small trial should not be touted by the company. Any affect that article may have had was temporary anyway. Matt Vincent should point to the years of mismanagement from Caldwell-Wotton as the real reason for the stock price decline and stop using Mako as a scapegoat. The share price had tanked long before that article came out anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by greatceasarsghost on Jan 8, 2016 15:56:37 GMT
No. Specifically the article he wrote that speculated cataract surgery was the cause of visual gains. He went out if his way to discredit the integrity of the ocat trial in that article. His brush might not have been as wide as Mako's, but he painted the same colour. Either way you look at it, he helped with the erosion in that article and he must be proud to see the IP changing hands. Well done. *slow clap* Give me a break. Seriously. He wrote an article giving a contrarian point of view as to why one person in a small trial should not be touted by the company. Any affect that article may have had was temporary anyway. Matt Vincent should point to the years of mismanagement from Caldwell-Wotton as the real reason for the stock price decline and stop using Mako as a scapegoat. The share price had tanked long before that article came out anyway. According to MAKO the offices were already cleared. |
|
|
|
Post by actcforme on Jan 8, 2016 16:13:55 GMT
I have had an epiphany this morning. We have been duped. If anyone believes that Matt contacted Paul for permission to contact shareholders AND answer their questions, then I have some swamp land in Louisiana I want to sell you.
Matt's "story" matches up with calls to shareholders by InvestorCom, Inc. I ASSURE YOU it was the other way around, that Paul contacted Matt and asked him to do this for them. He clearly must have left on good terms or they could not have done this.
I feel Belas has been duped to believe Matt wanted to "set the record straight" about why he left Ocata, rather he is working for Ocata management, being their mouthpiece to scare shareholders into tendering. If this were true, he could have done so LONG ago, why now?
I am outraged the more I think of this, that we have to have a FORMER EMPLOYEE, who was shut down from talking to us when he worked there, but now that he is gone, he is okayed to talk with us. They insult my intelligence and are disgusting.
I am shocked we are told "it's okay to send Matt more questions and he will answer them" -- A FORMER EMPLOYEE, who they would NOT let talk to us when he worked there, rather than Paul have to answer to shareholders.
They can kiss our collective asses. PAUL WOTTON needs to answer the shareholders' questions NOT a former employee they marginalized. These people are the gang that can't shoot straight.
|
|
|
|
Post by oaktreetrading on Jan 8, 2016 16:22:15 GMT
Thanks Matt for the background but I will not tender. To say Astella not going to raise the offer because If the did they would have done it after the first round. That same logic I say if they walked they would have walked already. I am ready to go down with the ship. Golden - FYI, there's a term in the agreement that requires Astellas to extend the offer. They can't walk yet. The language was posted somewhere.... its in the agreement. Astellas is required to extend if they don't get 51%, but they don't have to extend past May 9th. Hi jckrdu - Are you confident that they are 'required' to extend the offer period until May? If so, this changes the landscape a bit for me personally over the next few weeks. I didn't know if there was an amendment to cancel any requirement, and they can pull out after Jan 21st. |
|
|
|
Post by actcforme on Jan 8, 2016 16:38:24 GMT
I will have to re-review, but I read it as if they "can" if they want,extend the offer to May, not that they HAVE to, but I could be wrong, just how I understood it. If they extend the offer all the way to May, IMO, they are hell bent on getting the company and that is a good sign.
If, as Matt (mouthpiece for Paul) and Ted are trying to scare folks to believe, they will NOT raise the price, why would they hang on until May knowing shareholders are outraged with this price, and the outrage seems to grow, NOT dissipate? I happen to think they don't need to wait until May to know if this will go through, and the longer it goes, with the likes of GAMCO on board, and other big shareholders working behind the scenes, I still believe momentum is on the side of the shareholders, for either a higher price, no matter what lies they are telling shareholders, OR others controlling the company and kicking Paul and BOD to the curb.
I know for a FACT the trials are recruiting. Wife of my husband's golf buddy called Wills Eye on Monday, January 4th and they told her YES they are recruiting for the trial.
Management is also telling shareholders they are running out of money, which contradicts my transcripts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Jan 8, 2016 16:43:13 GMT
Golden - FYI, there's a term in the agreement that requires Astellas to extend the offer. They can't walk yet. The language was posted somewhere.... its in the agreement. Astellas is required to extend if they don't get 51%, but they don't have to extend past May 9th. Hi jckrdu - Are you confident that they are 'required' to extend the offer period until May? If so, this changes the landscape a bit for me personally over the next few weeks. I didn't know if there was an amendment to cancel any requirement, and they can pull out after Jan 21st. 98% confident they are required to extend. There was a post on ICELL where someone made that point and pasted the exact language from the contract. I'm sure you could find the language if you search the filing for "extend". |
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Jan 8, 2016 16:44:48 GMT
Still think most likely scenario is a somewhat higher offer, but you know my thoughts on the risks.
|
|
|
|
Post by oaktreetrading on Jan 8, 2016 16:52:01 GMT
I agree, why walk away now when you could throw another $50-$100 million to the offer and probably seal the deal with enough shareholders to sell. I agree with Patti that the timing and content of what Matt says is extremely skeptical. Why does he even care to 'clear the air' now? Hasn't seemed to care much the last six months. Timing is too ironic for me and this is all business to them, so I trust no one.
|
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Jan 8, 2016 16:55:21 GMT
No. Specifically the article he wrote that speculated cataract surgery was the cause of visual gains. He went out if his way to discredit the integrity of the ocat trial in that article. His brush might not have been as wide as Mako's, but he painted the same colour. Either way you look at it, he helped with the erosion in that article and he must be proud to see the IP changing hands. Well done. *slow clap* Give me a break. Seriously. He wrote an article giving a contrarian point of view as to why one person in a small trial should not be touted by the company. Any affect that article may have had was temporary anyway. Matt Vincent should point to the years of mismanagement from Caldwell-Wotton as the real reason for the stock price decline and stop using Mako as a scapegoat. The share price had tanked long before that article came out anyway. So you're saying it's ok to write junk as long as there's enough time for the price to recover? I agree that management messed up a lot to drop the share price. It's certainly the main reason. But now matt and Paul have talked about the wanna be experts on SA with no real apparent qualifications in the medical field. So, you referenced matt's take on things originally, I'm guessing because he was closer than anyone here as probably knowing better, but you're not taking some of his reasons seriously as to how they got there? |
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Jan 8, 2016 17:02:18 GMT
Hi jckrdu - Are you confident that they are 'required' to extend the offer period until May? If so, this changes the landscape a bit for me personally over the next few weeks. I didn't know if there was an amendment to cancel any requirement, and they can pull out after Jan 21st. 98% confident they are required to extend. There was a post on ICELL where someone made that point and pasted the exact language from the contract. I'm sure you could find the language if you search the filing for "extend". Oak - And let me clarify that I'm 98% they are required to extend, but... I'm NOT 98% confident they're required to extend all the way until May 9th. Language wasn't crystal clear to me on that point. |
|
|
|
Post by actcforme on Jan 8, 2016 17:08:09 GMT
I agree, why walk away now when you could throw another $50-$100 million to the offer and probably seal the deal with enough shareholders to sell. I agree with Patti that the timing and content of what Matt says is extremely skeptical. Why does he even care to 'clear the air' now? Hasn't seemed to care much the last six months. Timing is too ironic for me and this is all business to them, so I trust no one. Oaktree, it is NOT that Matt didn't care the last six months,, it's that HE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE since September, going on 5 months. This does not pass the smell test, that he did this on his own accord. I feel certain he is WORKING for Ocata and trying to scare shareholders that they should tender, that Astellas "probably" won't raise the price and Ocata is going broke. I would bet my investment in Ocata that he was recruited by Paul Wotton to do their dirty work, to scare shareholders into tendering, gave him the opportunity to tell icell/shareholders about his new company (which may go public), and as my husband said, probably even being paid a "consultant" fee to do their dirty work.
Shame on Matt for getting involved.
I am embarrassed for iCell members falling for this, and starting a thread there "questions for Matt." How are they so naïve -- Stockfodder???
If I was Belas, I would tell Matt, I do not appreciate being lied to and used for Ocata management's benefit, shareholders be damned.
I wish someone would copy my comments to iCell, with my full permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by harleyquinn on Jan 8, 2016 17:14:54 GMT
I agree, why walk away now when you could throw another $50-$100 million to the offer and probably seal the deal with enough shareholders to sell. I agree with Patti that the timing and content of what Matt says is extremely skeptical. Why does he even care to 'clear the air' now? Hasn't seemed to care much the last six months. Timing is too ironic for me and this is all business to them, so I trust no one. Oaktree, it is NOT that Matt didn't care the last six months,, it's that HE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE since September, going on 5 months. This does not pass the smell test, that he did this on his own accord. I feel certain he is WORKING for Ocata and trying to scare shareholders that they should tender, that Astellas "probably" won't raise the price and Ocata is going broke. I would bet my investment in Ocata that he was recruited by Paul Wotton to do their dirty work, to scare shareholders into tendering, gave him the opportunity to tell icell/shareholders about his new company (which may go public), and as my husband said, probably even being paid a "consultant" fee to do their dirty work.
Shame on Matt for getting involved.
I am embarrassed for iCell members falling for this, and starting a thread there "questions for Matt." How are they so naïve -- Stockfodder???
If I was Belas, I would tell Matt, I do not appreciate being lied to and used for Ocata management's benefit, shareholders be damned.
I wish someone would copy my comments to iCell, with my full permission.
Not to state the obvious, but I imagine he owns/owned quite a lot of shares through his tenure and would therefore have some vested interest one way or another without being on payroll.... |
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 8, 2016 17:22:52 GMT
I have had an epiphany this morning. We have been duped. If anyone believes that Matt contacted Paul for permission to contact shareholders AND answer their questions, then I have some swamp land in Louisiana I want to sell you.
Matt's "story" matches up with calls to shareholders by InvestorCom, Inc. I ASSURE YOU it was the other way around, that Paul contacted Matt and asked him to do this for them. He clearly must have left on good terms or they could not have done this.
I feel Belas has been duped to believe Matt wanted to "set the record straight" about why he left Ocata, rather he is working for Ocata management, being their mouthpiece to scare shareholders into tendering. If this were true, he could have done so LONG ago, why now?
I am outraged the more I think of this, that we have to have a FORMER EMPLOYEE, who was shut down from talking to us when he worked there, but now that he is gone, he is okayed to talk with us. They insult my intelligence and are disgusting.
I am shocked we are told "it's okay to send Matt more questions and he will answer them" -- A FORMER EMPLOYEE, who they would NOT let talk to us when he worked there, rather than Paul have to answer to shareholders.
They can kiss our collective asses. PAUL WOTTON needs to answer the shareholders' questions NOT a former employee they marginalized. These people are the gang that can't shoot straight.
I lagree, for the most part. I think Matt feels more of a connection to the retail base than most at Ocata and he wanted to clarify that he left the company voluntarily. I also think he saw an opportunity to play the hero to his former colleagues and attempt to subdue investor angst about the proposed buyout. Also, now that he's gone he'd probably like to just see the science continue on since he invested a lot of time with IP side of things and I think he sees the buyout as the most sure way for that to happen. I'm sure Paul knows that Matt has had a pretty good relationship with shareholders and saw this as an opportunity to leverage that and I'm sure Astellas signed off as well otherwise Paul might say yeah, go ahead and clarify you weren't axed but left on your own accord and leave it at that. Instead, Matt goes into why the buyout is a good thing for shareholders so no doubt Ocata and Astellas are cool with that. Does Matt really believe this buyout is good for shareholders? Maybe, it's the safe play for him to say at this point - play hero to Ocata/Astellas, see the science move forward, shareholders get hosed but not as bad as it could potentially be in other scenarios. Very bizzare though how Ocata management has routinely touted how the company is in its best shape ever and then think the best thing is to sell for a portion of what the company could be worth with positive P2 data. I tend to think most investors in this stock did not get in to take a loss or small gain the proposed buyout offers but rather a very large gain (accepting large risk along the way) and not planning on selling for a number of years, which also makes me think many investors would much rather take another round of dilution than see the company sold. I think it'd be an easier sell if the deal was a stock for stock merger with a synergystic small to mid cap company that could help fund the thing and shareholders could still stay invested and experience large gains. Ocata screwed up the P2 enrollment criteria and they see the buyout as an easy way out because trials are hard, running a company is hard, especially a tiny biotech wiht no revenue, but selling the company at this stage for this price is never going to be popular with the owners (shareholders) and not what we were told these guys were brought in for, quite the opposite actually. So, while I'm sure there is truth in Matt's words I have to take it all in context, if Ocata wants to give me more information about why I should tender at $8.50 then by all means share the info directly and officially. |
|
|
|
Post by oaktreetrading on Jan 8, 2016 17:24:25 GMT
Actcforme - I agree. The point of me saying he didn't care the last six months was just that (guess I should've said five). I realize he wasn't an employee, I'm just saying why didn't he offer up more info two months ago when we found out he wasn't an employee? Why not five months ago? Matt is a smart enough guy to know that if he plants a seed in the Icell world, it will explode within hours and everyone will know. Too ironic of timing and why does he even care.
Interesting theory that he is a paid consultant for them, I wouldn't be shocked. And reading between the lines, per my view, Matt was telling all of us to let Astellas have it for $8.5 because nothing better is coming.
I agree, smells dirty
|
|
