You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Naked Short Selling
- Thread starter flytiger
- Start date
The most outrageous yet. For those of you that think anything goes, ever had prostate cancer????? They bribed the FDA. Can you believe this shit???? I do. Maybe you will now, too. When is enough money enough?
Trading alert: Dendreon (DNDN)
The investment newsletter Biotech Stock Research is reporting that three Congressmen have asked the House Energy and Commerce Committee to hold hearings regarding conflict of interest at the FDA and the agency's decision to not approve Provenge.
This could pop DNDN but it should be noted that the request for hearings have not, so far, led to any scheduled hearings.
Trading alert: Dendreon (DNDN)
The investment newsletter Biotech Stock Research is reporting that three Congressmen have asked the House Energy and Commerce Committee to hold hearings regarding conflict of interest at the FDA and the agency's decision to not approve Provenge.
This could pop DNDN but it should be noted that the request for hearings have not, so far, led to any scheduled hearings.
http://www.arighttolive.com/
**Michaud Calls for Hearing on Potential Life-saving Prostate Cancer Drug**
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 13, 2007
CONTACT: Monica Castellanos @ 207-782-3704
Michaud Calls for Hearing on Potential
Life-saving Prostate Cancer Drug
WASHINGTON, DC â Today, Congressman Mike Michaud joined with his colleagues Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) and Tim Ryan (D-OH) in calling on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct a hearing to examine the conflict of interests governing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its recent decision on failing to approve licensure of Provenge, a potentially life-saving therapy for those suffering from advanced prostate cancer.
âMany ethical questions remain about the two panelists who voted no on approving this drug,â Michaud said. âI believe that the FDA should not be appointing scientists leading the testing of a rival drug for another firm onto an advisory committee evaluating Provenge. Congress needs to get to the bottom of this. I believe a full disclosure is necessary in order to restore confidence in the FDA.â
The bipartisan letter requests that the Energy and Commerce Committee hold a hearing to examine possible ethical violations of these panel members considering the viability of potentially important life-saving drugs.
âWe need to ensure that the FDA gets life-saving drugs to the market as quickly and as safely as possible,â Michaud stated. âOur priority is to ensure the prompt and efficient approval of therapies such as Provenge that could potentially benefit millions of Americans with cancer.â
[Letter Attached]
###
ProvengeLetter.pdf
**Michaud Calls for Hearing on Potential Life-saving Prostate Cancer Drug**
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 13, 2007
CONTACT: Monica Castellanos @ 207-782-3704
Michaud Calls for Hearing on Potential
Life-saving Prostate Cancer Drug
WASHINGTON, DC â Today, Congressman Mike Michaud joined with his colleagues Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) and Tim Ryan (D-OH) in calling on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct a hearing to examine the conflict of interests governing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its recent decision on failing to approve licensure of Provenge, a potentially life-saving therapy for those suffering from advanced prostate cancer.
âMany ethical questions remain about the two panelists who voted no on approving this drug,â Michaud said. âI believe that the FDA should not be appointing scientists leading the testing of a rival drug for another firm onto an advisory committee evaluating Provenge. Congress needs to get to the bottom of this. I believe a full disclosure is necessary in order to restore confidence in the FDA.â
The bipartisan letter requests that the Energy and Commerce Committee hold a hearing to examine possible ethical violations of these panel members considering the viability of potentially important life-saving drugs.
âWe need to ensure that the FDA gets life-saving drugs to the market as quickly and as safely as possible,â Michaud stated. âOur priority is to ensure the prompt and efficient approval of therapies such as Provenge that could potentially benefit millions of Americans with cancer.â
[Letter Attached]
###
ProvengeLetter.pdf
Dendreon (DNDN) has been on Regulation SHO Threshold List for 186 consecutive days.
DNDN has a short interest of 30M out of 80M shares outstanding.
Page 1 of 2
BN 14:17 Dendreon Shares Jump on Inquiry Into Drug Rejection (Update2)
(Adds names of FDA panelists in sixth paragraph.)
By Luke Timmerman
Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Dendreon Corp. shares jumped the most
in nine months in Nasdaq Stock Market trading as three members of
Congress called for hearings to investigate the rejection of the
company's experimental prostate cancer drug.
Dendreon rose 85 cents, or 15 percent, to $6.49 at 2:16 p.m.
New York time, after climbing as much as 33 percent. The stock
almost tripled on March 30 after a panel of advisers recommended
that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approve the treatment,
Provenge. The agency rejected the drug in May.
Representatives Dan Burton, Michael Michaud and Tim Ryan
sent a letter requesting hearings to Representative John Dingell,
chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
lawmakers said they wanted an inquiry into potential conflicts of
interest for two members of the advisory panel who argued against
approval of Provenge. Michaud of Maine and Ryan of Ohio are
Democrats, and Burton is a Republican from Indiana.
``There is reason to believe that serious ethics rules were
violated'' by the two panel members, the lawmakers wrote in their
letter.
Dendreon won a 13-4 vote in favor of Provenge at the meeting
of cancer advisers to the FDA in March. While the FDA usually
follows the advice of its panels, the agency said on May 9 that
Dendreon would have to produce results from another study to win
approval. Dendreon lost almost $1 billion in market value.
Rival Drug
Two members of the panel who voted against Provenge --
oncologists Howard Scher of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center in New York and Maha Hussain of the University of Michigan
-- were cited by the lawmakers as having potential conflicts.
Scher is the lead investigator of a trial for a competing
experimental drug made by Novacea Inc. and advises a venture
capital firm that invests in that company, according to the
letter.
``We believe the FDA should not be appointing scientists
leading the testing of a rival drug for another firm onto an
advisory panel evaluating Provenge,'' the House members wrote.
They didn't specify their concerns about Hussain, who wrote to a
newsletter urging the FDA to reject Provenge after the panel
overruled her.
Patient advocacy groups have denounced the two FDA panel
members in letters and on Web sites since the agency's rejection
of Provenge in May.
A person who answered the phone in Scher's office referred
-----------------------------====================------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2007, Bloomberg, L. P.
Page 2 of 2
inquiries to Memorial Sloan Kettering, which didn't respond
immediately. Hussain didn't immediately answer an e-mailed
request for comment.
`Congressional Pressure'
The next question is whether hearings are actually convened
by congressional leaders, said David Miller, president of Biotech
Stock Research, an independent equity research firm in Seattle.
``Congressional pressure is the only way Dendreon's Provenge
will make it to the market'' before data on another study becomes
available in the second half of 2008, Miller said today in a note
to clients.
If approved, Provenge would become the first treatment to
actively stimulate the immune system to attack cancer cells. The
drug showed an ability to prolong lives with minimal side effects
in one clinical trial, although it failed to reach the study's
main goal of slowing the spread of prostate cancer. If approved,
it could generate $1 billion annually in sales, analysts say.
--Editors: Larry Liebert, Jeanmarie Todd.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Luke Timmerman in San Francisco at +1-415-732-3135 or
ltimmerman@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Reg Gale in New York at +1-212-617-2563 or rgale5@bloomberg.net
DNDN has a short interest of 30M out of 80M shares outstanding.
Page 1 of 2
BN 14:17 Dendreon Shares Jump on Inquiry Into Drug Rejection (Update2)
(Adds names of FDA panelists in sixth paragraph.)
By Luke Timmerman
Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Dendreon Corp. shares jumped the most
in nine months in Nasdaq Stock Market trading as three members of
Congress called for hearings to investigate the rejection of the
company's experimental prostate cancer drug.
Dendreon rose 85 cents, or 15 percent, to $6.49 at 2:16 p.m.
New York time, after climbing as much as 33 percent. The stock
almost tripled on March 30 after a panel of advisers recommended
that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approve the treatment,
Provenge. The agency rejected the drug in May.
Representatives Dan Burton, Michael Michaud and Tim Ryan
sent a letter requesting hearings to Representative John Dingell,
chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
lawmakers said they wanted an inquiry into potential conflicts of
interest for two members of the advisory panel who argued against
approval of Provenge. Michaud of Maine and Ryan of Ohio are
Democrats, and Burton is a Republican from Indiana.
``There is reason to believe that serious ethics rules were
violated'' by the two panel members, the lawmakers wrote in their
letter.
Dendreon won a 13-4 vote in favor of Provenge at the meeting
of cancer advisers to the FDA in March. While the FDA usually
follows the advice of its panels, the agency said on May 9 that
Dendreon would have to produce results from another study to win
approval. Dendreon lost almost $1 billion in market value.
Rival Drug
Two members of the panel who voted against Provenge --
oncologists Howard Scher of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center in New York and Maha Hussain of the University of Michigan
-- were cited by the lawmakers as having potential conflicts.
Scher is the lead investigator of a trial for a competing
experimental drug made by Novacea Inc. and advises a venture
capital firm that invests in that company, according to the
letter.
``We believe the FDA should not be appointing scientists
leading the testing of a rival drug for another firm onto an
advisory panel evaluating Provenge,'' the House members wrote.
They didn't specify their concerns about Hussain, who wrote to a
newsletter urging the FDA to reject Provenge after the panel
overruled her.
Patient advocacy groups have denounced the two FDA panel
members in letters and on Web sites since the agency's rejection
of Provenge in May.
A person who answered the phone in Scher's office referred
-----------------------------====================------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2007, Bloomberg, L. P.
Page 2 of 2
inquiries to Memorial Sloan Kettering, which didn't respond
immediately. Hussain didn't immediately answer an e-mailed
request for comment.
`Congressional Pressure'
The next question is whether hearings are actually convened
by congressional leaders, said David Miller, president of Biotech
Stock Research, an independent equity research firm in Seattle.
``Congressional pressure is the only way Dendreon's Provenge
will make it to the market'' before data on another study becomes
available in the second half of 2008, Miller said today in a note
to clients.
If approved, Provenge would become the first treatment to
actively stimulate the immune system to attack cancer cells. The
drug showed an ability to prolong lives with minimal side effects
in one clinical trial, although it failed to reach the study's
main goal of slowing the spread of prostate cancer. If approved,
it could generate $1 billion annually in sales, analysts say.
--Editors: Larry Liebert, Jeanmarie Todd.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Luke Timmerman in San Francisco at +1-415-732-3135 or
ltimmerman@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Reg Gale in New York at +1-212-617-2563 or rgale5@bloomberg.net
More whinage about naked short selling.
Quote from eusdaiki:
I wonder why they don't have this problem in London... after all they don't require you to borrow shorts for intraday...
and there is no down tick rule.
I don't know where you have been, but regarding shorts it used to be called the uptick rule, and they uptick rule for shorting was eliminated earlier this year.
That's in the US Markets.
The problem just isnt' the naked shorting. Naked shorting is sort of a shotgunning technique. You get short if you think a stock is going down. You get "naked short" if you KNOW the stock is going down.
In this situation, it appears two panel members were "persuaded " to help out when the shorts were on the hook for tens of millions.
The Biovail suit, the OSTK suits, show you that with money at stake in these amounts, you want to "help:" the stocks lower in a hurry. Every once in a while, a JSDA or CROX goes off in their hands.
It's a bit more complicated than presented. But, if they're on the hook llike I think, this DNDN could explode.
In this situation, it appears two panel members were "persuaded " to help out when the shorts were on the hook for tens of millions.
The Biovail suit, the OSTK suits, show you that with money at stake in these amounts, you want to "help:" the stocks lower in a hurry. Every once in a while, a JSDA or CROX goes off in their hands.
It's a bit more complicated than presented. But, if they're on the hook llike I think, this DNDN could explode.
The last line in this story is remarkable. It shows the heat is really paying off.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/business/16gret.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 16, 2007
Fair Game
Quick, Call Tech Support for the S.E.C.
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
ITâS no secret that the Securities and Exchange Commission is terrifically understaffed and wildly underfunded compared with the populous and wealthy Wall Street world it is supposed to police. But a report by the Government Accountability Office to be released Monday indicates that in its battles against insider trading and market manipulation, the commission declines to use one of the sharpest tools in its arsenal: the internal audits conducted by the nationâs stock and options exchanges.
Moreover, S.E.C. investigatorsâ efforts to track questionable trading are hampered by a computer system that does not allow investigative referrals from the major exchanges to be searched easily and efficiently, the report said.
The new report on the S.E.C. focuses on its oversight of the various stock and options exchanges, known as self-regulatory organizations, investorsâ first line of defense against market manipulation and insider trading. The study was requested by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. Grassley asked for a review of the commissionâs operations last year after his staff delved into a botched S.E.C. investigation of possible insider trading at Pequot Capital Management, a major hedge fund. The G.A.O.âs report, âOpportunities Exist to Improve Oversight of Self-Regulatory Organizations,â is disturbing, he said.
âTheyâve got a computer system that canât search for the data the securities industry is reporting â thatâs like working with one hand tied behind your back,â Mr. Grassley said in an interview. âAnd it was kind of shocking to know that the S.E.C. doesnât review the exchangesâ internal audits. Thatâs inefficiency and there is no excuse for it.â
There is no doubt that market mischief has enriched many players recently, especially during the mergers-and-acquisitions boom, when so much suspicious trading occurred in stocks of companies minutes before they received buyout bids.
Sure enough, the G.A.O. report noted that the exchangesâ referrals of possible trading improprieties have surged. From 2003 to 2006, the number of advisories to the S.E.C. increased to 190 from 5. Of the total during those years, 91 percent were insider trading advisories.
But when referrals come in to the S.E.C. from the exchanges, they enter a digital netherworld where investigators can search by stock ticker, date of the unusual activity and type of trading, but not by the name of someone or some firm who may be under scrutiny.
Information about who is behind suspect trading, which can help identify patterns of illicit activity by hedge funds, firms or individuals, is submitted in an attachment that must be opened individually under the systemâs design. As such, it is not part of the searchable database, the G.A.O. said.
In addition, only branch chiefs in the office of market surveillance, a unit of the S.E.C.âs enforcement division, have access to the referral data. So S.E.C. lawyers working on a case have to ask market surveillance for help or contact the exchanges directly, rather than search for the information electronically, the G.A.O. said.
The report also said that because the referral and case tracking systems are not linked, the effectiveness of the referral and investigation process cannot be analyzed.
In a letter to the G.A.O. responding to its report, Christopher Cox, chairman of the S.E.C., agreed that technology changes might help the enforcement staff analyze trends, manage caseloads and focus on areas worthy of their investigation. âWe will assess the feasibility of the recommended system improvements,â he concluded.
Even more troubling, Mr. Grassley said, is that the S.E.C. does not automatically receive reports from the exchanges of the internal audits and investigations they conduct. Instead, the commission simply asks that the exchanges permit access to these documents when the S.E.C. drops by for an inspection.
This is an odd approach for an agency that is supposed to be interested in efficiency. By regularly reviewing what turned up in the exchangesâ internal investigations, the commission could identify problem areas and potential improprieties early on. Limiting its access solely to the times when it inspects self-regulatory organizations â once a year at best â means the commission is putting itself and investors at a disadvantage.
BY the way, this isnât the first time the commission has been urged to review exchangesâ internal reports more regularly. The G.A.O. made the same recommendation three years ago. As that report was conducted, however, S.E.C. officials told G.A.O. researchers that the routine use of internal audits and investigations might have a âchilling effectâ on the relationships between audit staffs at the exchanges and other employees there.
âGiven that S.R.O.âs are entrusted with direct regulation of the securities industry, there is no excuse for them being anything less than completely transparent to the S.E.C.,â Mr. Grassley wrote in a letter late last week to Mr. Cox. âI would appreciate an explanation of why the S.E.C. has been so slow to act on this matter and a description of your plans for ensuring that the S.E.C. begin to routinely obtain and review internal S.R.O. audits and investigations.â
Mr. Grassley asked Mr. Cox to reply by Jan. 4.
As the G.A.O. pointed out, the commission is unusual in its reluctance to use contemporaneous reviews of exchangesâ internal investigations. Federal bank examiners base their risk assessments of the institutions they oversee at least partly on internal audit reports produced by these institutions. By not including internal audit information in its planning, the S.E.C. may duplicate the exchangesâ efforts or miss opportunities to uncover new areas of investigatory interest, the report said.
The bad news is that these regulatory lapses seem so basic that it is hard to believe no one at the S.E.C. has resolved them by now. The good news is, because they are so basic, they can be fixed promptly.
And if they arenât? Call it one more data point for those who increasingly wonder whose side the S.E.C. is on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/business/16gret.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 16, 2007
Fair Game
Quick, Call Tech Support for the S.E.C.
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
ITâS no secret that the Securities and Exchange Commission is terrifically understaffed and wildly underfunded compared with the populous and wealthy Wall Street world it is supposed to police. But a report by the Government Accountability Office to be released Monday indicates that in its battles against insider trading and market manipulation, the commission declines to use one of the sharpest tools in its arsenal: the internal audits conducted by the nationâs stock and options exchanges.
Moreover, S.E.C. investigatorsâ efforts to track questionable trading are hampered by a computer system that does not allow investigative referrals from the major exchanges to be searched easily and efficiently, the report said.
The new report on the S.E.C. focuses on its oversight of the various stock and options exchanges, known as self-regulatory organizations, investorsâ first line of defense against market manipulation and insider trading. The study was requested by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. Grassley asked for a review of the commissionâs operations last year after his staff delved into a botched S.E.C. investigation of possible insider trading at Pequot Capital Management, a major hedge fund. The G.A.O.âs report, âOpportunities Exist to Improve Oversight of Self-Regulatory Organizations,â is disturbing, he said.
âTheyâve got a computer system that canât search for the data the securities industry is reporting â thatâs like working with one hand tied behind your back,â Mr. Grassley said in an interview. âAnd it was kind of shocking to know that the S.E.C. doesnât review the exchangesâ internal audits. Thatâs inefficiency and there is no excuse for it.â
There is no doubt that market mischief has enriched many players recently, especially during the mergers-and-acquisitions boom, when so much suspicious trading occurred in stocks of companies minutes before they received buyout bids.
Sure enough, the G.A.O. report noted that the exchangesâ referrals of possible trading improprieties have surged. From 2003 to 2006, the number of advisories to the S.E.C. increased to 190 from 5. Of the total during those years, 91 percent were insider trading advisories.
But when referrals come in to the S.E.C. from the exchanges, they enter a digital netherworld where investigators can search by stock ticker, date of the unusual activity and type of trading, but not by the name of someone or some firm who may be under scrutiny.
Information about who is behind suspect trading, which can help identify patterns of illicit activity by hedge funds, firms or individuals, is submitted in an attachment that must be opened individually under the systemâs design. As such, it is not part of the searchable database, the G.A.O. said.
In addition, only branch chiefs in the office of market surveillance, a unit of the S.E.C.âs enforcement division, have access to the referral data. So S.E.C. lawyers working on a case have to ask market surveillance for help or contact the exchanges directly, rather than search for the information electronically, the G.A.O. said.
The report also said that because the referral and case tracking systems are not linked, the effectiveness of the referral and investigation process cannot be analyzed.
In a letter to the G.A.O. responding to its report, Christopher Cox, chairman of the S.E.C., agreed that technology changes might help the enforcement staff analyze trends, manage caseloads and focus on areas worthy of their investigation. âWe will assess the feasibility of the recommended system improvements,â he concluded.
Even more troubling, Mr. Grassley said, is that the S.E.C. does not automatically receive reports from the exchanges of the internal audits and investigations they conduct. Instead, the commission simply asks that the exchanges permit access to these documents when the S.E.C. drops by for an inspection.
This is an odd approach for an agency that is supposed to be interested in efficiency. By regularly reviewing what turned up in the exchangesâ internal investigations, the commission could identify problem areas and potential improprieties early on. Limiting its access solely to the times when it inspects self-regulatory organizations â once a year at best â means the commission is putting itself and investors at a disadvantage.
BY the way, this isnât the first time the commission has been urged to review exchangesâ internal reports more regularly. The G.A.O. made the same recommendation three years ago. As that report was conducted, however, S.E.C. officials told G.A.O. researchers that the routine use of internal audits and investigations might have a âchilling effectâ on the relationships between audit staffs at the exchanges and other employees there.
âGiven that S.R.O.âs are entrusted with direct regulation of the securities industry, there is no excuse for them being anything less than completely transparent to the S.E.C.,â Mr. Grassley wrote in a letter late last week to Mr. Cox. âI would appreciate an explanation of why the S.E.C. has been so slow to act on this matter and a description of your plans for ensuring that the S.E.C. begin to routinely obtain and review internal S.R.O. audits and investigations.â
Mr. Grassley asked Mr. Cox to reply by Jan. 4.
As the G.A.O. pointed out, the commission is unusual in its reluctance to use contemporaneous reviews of exchangesâ internal investigations. Federal bank examiners base their risk assessments of the institutions they oversee at least partly on internal audit reports produced by these institutions. By not including internal audit information in its planning, the S.E.C. may duplicate the exchangesâ efforts or miss opportunities to uncover new areas of investigatory interest, the report said.
The bad news is that these regulatory lapses seem so basic that it is hard to believe no one at the S.E.C. has resolved them by now. The good news is, because they are so basic, they can be fixed promptly.
And if they arenât? Call it one more data point for those who increasingly wonder whose side the S.E.C. is on.