What ridiculousness is everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), spewing on the last day of 2020? How about some hype around a journal article highlighting a case series of four Covid-19 patients (two of whom died) treated with loserlimab in the impressive sounding “Journal of Translational Autoimmunity.”
First some obvious caveats, this case series appears to be cherry picking rehash of the previous EIND patients, as all patients were admitted in April or May of 2020. There is no control group. Two of the four patients died, and one of the two surviving patients refused the second dose of loserlimab.
But more importantly, the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity is what is politely known as an “Open Access” journal. More colloquially, this is known as a “Pay for Play” journal. Yes, that is right, authors pay to be “published.” How much will an article in this prestigious journal cost you? A stock promoting bargain at $2250.00 not including sales tax.
One thing that Cytodyn did not press release today and likely does not want you to know about is this:
This means the shares, owned by John M. Fife, that were registered to be sold on the S-3/A the other day are now free to hit the market.
Happy New Year!
[Did you know Cytodyn is being sued by a group of former directors? What to know why? See here and here.]
[Did you know Loserlimab has virtually no chance of ever getting an EUA in the United States? Want to know why? See here.]
* Spelled Thusly For A Double Dose of That Sweet Sweet Stock Pimping
THE CONTENT CONTAINED IN THIS BLOG REPRESENTS ONLY THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHOR. THE AUTHOR MAY HOLD EITHER LONG OR SHORT POSITIONS IN SECURITIES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES DISCUSSED IN THE BLOG. THIS COMMENTARY IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES INVESTMENT ADVICE, AND SHOULD NEVER BE RELIED ON IN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION, EVER. THIS BLOG IS NOT A SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS: ALL INQUIRIES WILL BE IGNORED. THE CONTENT HEREIN IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT OF THE READER, AND THE AUTHOR.
For years now, everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), has been hyping up the potential for its only product, affectionately referred to as loserlimab, as a treatment for Graft versus Host Disease (GvHD). And as with all things Cytodyn, this has been only a string of ridiculous hype and broken promises.
The status of the GvHD trial is one of the topics in the company’s upcoming webcast on January 6, 2021:
[It should also be noted that there is no mention of the Philippines in this list, which is odd considering all of the hype in recent months. Unless, of course, one knows that all of that hype was easily disproven nonsense.]
As a preview of next week’s circus, let’s take a look at the history of the GvHD trial, and where it actually stands today.
For months now, everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), its CEO The NaDDir* and his klown krew, have been hyping up the potential for its only product, affectionately referred to as loserlimab, in the Philippines. As with all things Cytodyn, this has been just more ridiculous hype.
Recall when The NaDDir* was making the rounds of every Youtube doctors’ shows? Back on September 22, 2020, on something called the Dr. Been Show, The NaDDir* was not just positive, but VERY VERY positive about the Philippines:
Leave it to everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), its CEO The NaDDir* and his klown krew, to gift the world an absolutely stunning Christmas Eve Surprise in the form of a 7:45pm press release even more insane than their previous holiday stunners. The press release, like many, is designed to draw attention away from the real news, and instead focus the attention of inexperienced retail investors on some truly misleading hype. First the “shiny object” to distract:
Sadly, these morons have absolutely no clue what an Open Label Extension (OLE) is, and neither do their investors that are being pumped, dumped and chumped. The Klown Krew are claiming that the Open Label Extension will allow the company to enroll additional patients who will all receive loserlimab. This is NOT what an OLE is, nor what it allows. Here is some background reading on Open Label Extensions. From the British Medical Journal:
Given that CYDY constantly declares loserlimab is safe, why would they choose to do an OLE, when OLEs are meant to collect even more safety data? The article continues:
More from the Journal of Medical Ethicshere. And since the extension is open label, the data is almost certainly useless, as explained by Applied Clinical Trials, here:
As one now knows, an OLE is merely an, often shady, continuation of an existing clinical trial designed to collect safety data that allows all of the patients already enrolled in an existing trial the following:
Existing patients can choose to participate and thus are guaranteed to receive (or continue to receive) the study drug.
Existing patients can continue to be monitored past the study completion date.
Which of these two possibilities explains why Cytodyn would be asking the FDA for guidance on extending the much hyped CD12 trial of loserlimab in severe-to-critical Covid-19? According to The NaDDir* patients are only given loserlimab on days 0 and 7, they do not continue to receive loserlimab. From the October 20, 2020 CONference call:
This eliminates the first reason. Existing patients who choose to continue will not receive any more loserlimab, since they already received their two doses. Which leaves us with the second reason. The company is trying to find a way to continue to monitor patients after the 28 day mark. Why?
Perhaps because the DSMC asked for an analysis at 42 days. Recall back in October, when The NaDDir* explained they had to get 42 day data:
and then only a few weeks later, on December 10th, The NaDDir* abruptly changed his mind and announced that there would be no second interim analysis and no look at 42 days?
The OLE would allow for the company to continue to collect data past the 28 day mark. Our guess is that someone demanded the 42 day look and to save face Cytodyn is putting up a blatant smokescreen to distract people.
If that is the distraction, what is the real news that Cytodyn management is trying to bury? That is easy. Look at the bizarrely worded final statement from The NaDDir*:
Far from being the “amazing” trial that The NaDDir* announced, the CD10 trial of loserlimab in mild-to-moderate Covid-19 failed. Obviously. And completely.
[Did you know Cytodyn is being sued by a group of former directors? What to know why? See here and here.]
[Did you know Loserlimab has virtually no chance of ever getting an EUA in the United States? Want to know why? See here.]
[Did you know Cytodyn’s claims of non-dilutive financings (with notorious penny stock player John M. Fife) are complete bullshit? They are highly dilutive. Learn more here.]
* Spelled Thusly For A Double Dose of That Sweet Sweet Stock Pimping
THE CONTENT CONTAINED IN THIS BLOG REPRESENTS ONLY THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHOR. THE AUTHOR MAY HOLD EITHER LONG OR SHORT POSITIONS IN SECURITIES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES DISCUSSED IN THE BLOG. THIS COMMENTARY IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES INVESTMENT ADVICE, AND SHOULD NEVER BE RELIED ON IN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION, EVER. THIS BLOG IS NOT A SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS: ALL INQUIRIES WILL BE IGNORED. THE CONTENT HEREIN IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT OF THE READER, AND THE AUTHOR.
What ridiculousness are the stock promoting shills for everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), spewing in this holiday-shortened, and retail trader dominated week? Today it is some epic nonsense about a supposed Nasdaq “uplisting.” Say the shills:
The $4 level is referring to the Nasdaq’s $4 Minimum Bid Price requirement. The problem is that, barring epic improvements in Cytodyn’s financial situation by the time the current (February-ending) quarter ends, the company must meet the $4 minimum bid price test for 90 days, not 5. Which will require another 85 consecutive days of trading above the $4 requirement. Just look up the requirements for yourself at the Nasdaq’s website where you will find out that:
What nonsense is everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), spewing in this holiday-shortened, and retail trader dominated week? Today, the 22nd of December, comes a press release with a clearly misleading headline.
Hidden in the recent S-3 that everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), filed after the close on the 17th of December was an interesting paragraph providing more details on a transaction the company did back in March of this year. One may remember it from way back when the shares really started to catch the eye of bored, stuck-at-home, retail investors in the USA, and, somewhat inexplicably, Germany. The press release announcing the deal appears misleading at best, knowingly false at worst, and designed to sucker retail no matter what, especially given the conversion price was stated to be far higher than the market price at the time.
The deluded investors buying the shares would guess, given the scant details in the press release, that the note would be convertible into 3.333mm shares ($15mm/$4.50). The only true statements appear to be that Cytodyn completed a financing, someone invested, and there were no warrants attached. Everything else turned out to be untrue. All the details can be gleaned from this paragraph from the recent S-3:
Last Friday after the bell everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), filed a new Form S-3 revealing (as predicted) the supposedly “above market non-dilutive” deals with penny stock financier John M. Fife were actually highly dilutive forward-priced time bombs. Read about those deals here and here, and background about John here here and here.
We will explore that filing in more detail very soon. For the moment, however, we should not lose momentum in uncovering all of the dirty secrets The NaDDir* and his klown krew of kreme de la kreme managers don’t want investors to ever learn about. You know, the details in the lawsuit Alpha Venture Capital Partners LP v Cytodyn (CYDY), Pourhassan, et al. (Delaware Chancery Court 2020-0307-PAF) dated April 24, 2020. The one the company doesn’t properly disclose to investors, making it highly unlikely any of them would learn of its existence. Notice anything missing in this listing of legal proceedings involving Cytodyn?
We’re now in mid-December 2020, and thought it would be a good time for an update on one of the more curious stories of 2020. No, not Coronavirus, but rather everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), its klown krew of kreme de la kreme managers including The NaDDir* and the rather interesting lawsuit filed against them by a group of former directors. This particular suit was filed in late April. Missed it? Well, that might not be your fault, as Cytodyn has done its best to avoid disclosing it. Here is the litigation section from CYDY’s latest 10Q, filed in October for the period ending in August 2020.
While they do mention a suit filed on April 29, 2020 against the company, they fail to mention a different suit filed on April 24th, 2020. Which is very strange because Bloomberg News ran a story about it on April 30th. Fear not. We have it for you. Read the unredacted lawsuit the current Board of Directors and the company obviously do not want people to see right here. Catch up on some commentary about it here and here.
The suit concerns a breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste. Specifically, it has to do with a series of stock, option, and warrant grants in December of last year and January of 2020.
Here is a list of the December grants, and the lucky recipients:
And some background on the timing:
These December grants are also the subject of a spring-loading claim. They were hastily granted immediately before the release of some bullshit stock pumping nonsense two days later. Spring-loading is not taken lightly by the Delaware courts, as can be seen here.
The January 2020 grants are also interesting. Take a look at the massive awards they handed out to themselves just a month after pillaging the shareholders in December:
Why else might the company not want to alert shareholders to this lawsuit? Perhaps Paragraph 67 gives a clue?
Or maybe Paragraph 71?
Of course the company will deny these claims, say they are untrue, without merit. Perhaps The NaDDir* will whine and scream and shout that he is being singled out by nefarious forces. Or will they?
Readers may recall that in early May Cytodyn created a “Special Litigation Committee” (SLC) and hired the rather pricey West Coast law firm Wilson Sonsini to represent the SLC and conduct an investigation. We are pleased to report that the lawyers have completed their investigation and we have, as The NaDDir* might say, “a VERY exciting news for you!”
This may be the first time that anyone at BuyersStrike! HQ has seen an internal investigation vindicate the plaintiffs in a suit of this type. Remember, these lawyers are paid to show the company and management are NOT guilty.
At this point it would be prudent for the defendants and the company to settle the suit. But that might not be so easy. Unfortunately for The NaDDir* those shares he issued to himself in December 2019 had already been sold at the end of April 2020. This was disclosed in the infamous Form 144 filing from early May 2020.
The sale of that stock is the subject of a different lawsuit (Case #: 3:20-cv-05909-JLR in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington), which has also not been disclosed to investors. It should be quite interesting to watch. It may be difficult to rescind a grant that has already been sold into the marketplace. Even if The NaDDir* was forced to return the ill-gotten gains, the shareholders still absorb the dilution that has already occurred. Of course, if they had any sense at all, they wouldn’t be Cytodyn shareholders.
*Spelled thusly for a double dose of that sweet sweet stock pimping.
THE CONTENT CONTAINED IN THIS BLOG REPRESENTS ONLY THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHOR. THE AUTHOR MAY HOLD EITHER LONG OR SHORT POSITIONS IN SECURITIES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES DISCUSSED IN THE BLOG. THIS COMMENTARY IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES INVESTMENT ADVICE, AND SHOULD NEVER BE RELIED ON IN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION, EVER. THIS BLOG IS NOT A SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS: ALL INQUIRIES WILL BE IGNORED. THE CONTENT HEREIN IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT OF THE READER, AND THE AUTHOR.
Early this morning, the 11th of November, everyone’s favorite reverse-merger pink sheet Coronacrapper, Cytodyn (CYDY), issued a press release (here) eerily reminiscent of one from the end of July (here) and the end of March (here).
Here is the one from this morning:
Sounds AMAZING, right? Especially with the shares trading right around $2.00. But this is Cytodyn, so naturally nothing is as it seems. Instead this press release, like the July and March press releases before it, appears to be quite misleading as to the true amount raised, the effective interest rate, the true dilutive nature of the financing, and the true effective conversion price. We won’t know for sure, of course, until the company issues an 8k with the actual details.
Talk about deja vu. For the March deal we didn’t get any real details until the 8k was filed on the 6th of April (here). For the July deal we only had to wait 2 days, as the 8k was filed on the 31st of July (available here).
Both of those 8ks revealed important information that the press release conveniently omitted. The “institutional investor” in both turned out to be Iliad Research and Trading, LP. This is one of manyJohn M. Fife entities (Iliad, St. George, Chicago Venture Partners, among others). Who is he? A one-time variable annuity trader (see here) who moved into toxic financing of shady penny stocks.
And while the headline screams a top-line number of $28.5mm, the actual amount of money raised by the company was only $25mm.
The next red flag is that although the press release claimed it was a $28.5mm note convertible at $10, bearing interest at 10%, but these are misleading. As the company only received $25mm, a discount of 12.25%. This means that Fife invested $25mm but will receive at maturity the face value ($28.5mm) in addition to annual 10% interest on the face value. The effective interest rate is actually 11.4%.
And the $10 conversion price?
The note is convertible into 2.85mm shares at $10.50 per share. But as Iliad only paid $25mm for the note, the effective conversion price is actually $25/2.85 = $8.77 per share.
Finally, for all the claims about this being a non-dilutive financing, the 8ks from April and July are clear that in addition to “standard anti-dilution” the note also features a “full-ratchet.” A full-ratchet means that if the company raises money in the future at a lower price than given to Iliad, the conversion price is reset to the new, lower, amount. We suppose one could argue that Cytodyn isn’t lying, that the deal is certainly non-dilutive, but only to Iliad!
Not being big on coincidences here at BuyersStrike! HQ, we took a look at the unusual volume in Cytodyn shares on the 9th and 10th of November, 6.3mm and 11.1mm shares versus around 2mm shares a day on average the previous week:
Which may not be that unusual by itself, but what about the odd increase in shares outstanding as seen on Otcmarkets.com?
583.5mm shares as of November 9th, compared with 579.4mmas reported as of November 6th. Where did those 4.1mm shares come from? And to whom did they go?
As for what we don’t know, and likely will not know about this November deal, until the 8k is finally filed, here are our BuyersStrike! HQ predictions for the truth about this new CYDY deal:
The investor will be Iliad, or another Fife entity.
The “non-dilutive” deal will, in fact, be highly dilutive, just like the March and July deals.
And, those 4.1mm mystery shares that were issued sometime between November 6th and November 9th? Our prediction: Inducement to someone, most likely Iliad, and most likely the big seller on the 9th and 10th.
THE CONTENT CONTAINED IN THIS BLOG REPRESENTS ONLY THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHOR. THE AUTHOR MAY HOLD EITHER LONG OR SHORT POSITIONS IN SECURITIES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES DISCUSSED IN THE BLOG. THIS COMMENTARY IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES INVESTMENT ADVICE, AND SHOULD NEVER BE RELIED ON IN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION, EVER. THIS BLOG IS NOT A SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS: ALL INQUIRIES WILL BE IGNORED. THE CONTENT HEREIN IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT OF THE READER, AND THE AUTHOR.
