Just the facts maam
1 week ago
I find it interesting that in 2016 the FDA funded the following in 2016.
Cardiovascular Risk of Testosterone Treatment in Women (Special Funding) - Lai-Ming Lee, PhD/CDER
A variety of testosterone products are used off-label for the treatment of female sexual dysfunction (FSD). Due to the chronic nature of FSD, these products are anticipated to be used as long-term therapy in women. Therefore, assessment of cardiovascular risk will be an important factor in the risk/benefit determination. The Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score predicts the 10-year risk of all cardiovascular events including coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and heart failure. The variables used in the formula are age, sex, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, use of hypertension medication, smoking status, and history of diabetes. We hypothesize that the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score will be useful in estimating cardiovascular risk of drug products in Phase 3 trials. We will use available data to determine the utility of the Framingham General Risk Score to estimate the cardiovascular risk in women exposed to drug products with a likelihood of a cardiovascular signal. If successful, this formula would be applied to androgens and androgen-like products being evaluated for the treatment of female sexual dysfunctions in women.
I would not surprised if this forms part of the post marketing surveillance is part of Libigel or whatever it will be called. I would be highly surprised that the Libigel trial did not collect the 10 years of safety data, even if they stopped using the drug in 2012 or 2016. The 10-year post marketing surveillance will collect real world safety data for a total of 10 years.
FDA Office of Women's Health Research Program Awards by Funding Year
Just the facts maam
3 weeks ago
Silvr, I see that CGON stock has dropped significantly $28.50 and putting up daily 52 - week lows. Investors are now questioning their calculation of the complete response rate. Additionally, some are seeing, as you pointed out, the clarity of ANIP's stance vs the vagueness of CGON's stance on the matter.
CGON has much more to lose by their greed than ANIP in this matter. If they lose the ability to file an NDA, their stock becomes almost worthless.
Risk vs Reward make this a very big gamble by CGON for only 5% of net sales.
JMHO
silvr_surfr
3 weeks ago
Excellent summary JTFM. I like how transparent and detailed ANIP was in their 10Q about the suit including sharing the agreement un-redacted. This comes from a position of strength. Contrast that with CGON who treats it as a nuisance in their 10Q, which, to me, is a position of weakness.
Normally, I can find links to the suits on the various legal sites (e.g. Pacer), but I am not able to find any links on this one. I would pay to access the documents for this one, if I could find them.
Just the facts maam
3 weeks ago
Silvr, listening to the Conference Call, I wonder if there was a later agreement regarding dilution or if the non-dilution does not refer t common shares.
Stephen Carey
Yeah, Vamil, good morning, and thanks for taking our call this morning. Yeah, in terms of our equity position in CG Oncology, this is a position that harkens back to the November 15, 2010, transaction where the company sold assets to CG Oncology. And at that time, right, way back in that time, our equity stake was 19.9%. Obviously, during the intervening years, that ownership position has been diluted down and upon CG Oncology's IPO in January of 2024, we hold just shy of 220,000 shares of their common stock, which, as you see, as of March 31th, was worth about $9.7 million.
Just the facts maam
3 weeks ago
Thanks Slivr, as I read it it looks like ANIP could own 18.7 % of a $2 billion company. I agree I can see investor led litigation landing on CG Oncology's doorstep.
Regarding them hanging their hat on patent expiration. I found Beyond Hybrid Licenses—Strategies for Post Patent Expiration Payments in the United States very interesting in understanding the possible arguments and case law impacting those arguments.
When looking at the B. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC case, if they remain consistent, it appears that, Justices Alito, Thomas and Roberts would likely side with ANIP if it ever got to the supreme court.
silvr_surfr
3 weeks ago
I found the CGON update in the 10Q (page 27)
On March 4, 2024, ANI commenced a civil action against CG Oncology, Inc. f/k/a Cold Genesys, Inc. (“CG Oncology”) in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (“Delaware Action”). ANI’s complaint alleges that, under an Assignment and Technology Transfer Agreement dated as of November 15, 2010 (the “November 2010 Agreement”), CG Oncology is liable to pay ANI a running royalty of 5% of the worldwide net sales of cretostimogene made by CG Oncology or any affiliate or sublicensee thereof; and that in February 2024, CG Oncology wrongfully repudiated its royalty obligation to ANI. On April 2, 2024, CG Oncology filed an answer and counterclaim and concurrently moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment. CG Oncology seeks judgment declaring that the November 2010 Agreement does not "oblige CGON to pay royalties after expiration of the latest-running assigned patent." CG Oncology also seeks judgment awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages on counterclaims for alleged breach the November 2010 Agreement and for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and Delaware state law. On April 22 and 25, 2024, ANI filed its reply to CG Oncology's counterclaims, denying any liability to CG Oncology and asserting additional counterclaims against CG Oncology ("Reply Counterclaims") for alleged breach of the November 2010 Agreement and, in the alternative, for unjust enrichment. ANI’s Reply Counterclaims seek judgment (i) declaring that, under Section 3.3 of the November 2010 Agreement, CG Oncology is contractually obligated to pay ANI 5% of the worldwide net sales of cretostimogene made by CG Oncology or any affiliate or sublicensee thereof; (ii) dismissing CG Oncology’s counterclaims with prejudice; (iii) awarding ANI compensatory damages as provided by law, including damages grounded in restitution and unjust enrichment; (iv) in the event of a judgment in ANI’s favor on ANI’s fourth counterclaim for unjust enrichment, ordering CG Oncology to re-transfer to ANI ownership of all assets that ANI sold to CG Oncology under the November 2010 Agreement, including, without limitation, all data and documentation comprising IND 12154; and (v) in the event of a judgment in ANI’s favor on ANI’s fourth counterclaim for unjust enrichment, imposing a constructive trust on all fruits of CG0070-related assets that ANI sold to CG Oncology under the November 2010 Agreement including, without limitation, all data and documentation comprising IND 12154 and any other IND that CG Oncology may have for CG0070. ANI intends to vigorously pursue this matter.
Wow, this is going to be a nasty fight. I can't imagine the gall of CGON to seek damages against us while screwing us at the same time.
Just the facts maam
4 weeks ago
I generally look at the classic view as well. They are 18 month late for an extension, and no new trial was submitted which would have had to be registered and posted by October 27, 2022. Therefore, I don't believe a extension for good cause qualifies. Really looking like a certification request.
If AbbVie is involved, I believe they are waiting for July 1, 2023 when the Michael A. Roberts officially assumes the helm, as CEO. A good way to start under a new CEO.
Now, they don't have to worry about the Pre-notice for non compliance in submitting results coming out now until the first week of July.
JMHO
silvr_surfr
4 weeks ago
Hmm, I look at the classic version of the clinical trials page and it does not have this comment, so I cannot confirm that it is new. I looked at the rules again, and we can say for certainty that it is delayed for one of the below three reasons (perhaps the second reason does not even apply):
Certify Initial Approval: Trial studies an FDA-regulated drug product (including a biological product) or device product that was not approved, licensed or cleared by FDA for any use before the Primary Completion Date of the trial, and the sponsor intends to continue with product development and is either seeking, or may at a future date seek, FDA approval, licensure, or clearance of the drug product (including a biological product) or device product under study.
Certify New Use: Trial studies an FDA-regulated drug product (including a biological product) or device product that previously has been approved, licensed, or cleared, for which the manufacturer is the sponsor of the trial and for which an application or premarket notification seeking approval, licensure, or clearance of the use being studied (which is not included in the labeling of the approved, licensed, or cleared drug, product (including a biologic product) or device product) has been filed or will be filed within one year with FDA.
Extension: Request, for good cause, an extension of the deadline for submitting results information.
Could we FOIA this and find out what the delay reason was?