d gaser
11 Oct 2017
microscopic beads target livercancer Researchers from the UCL Cancer Institute and BTG (LON:BTG) have started the first clinical trial of microscopic beads loaded with a targeted, cancer-fighting drug for patients with primary liver cancer or metastatic colorectal cancer.The trial is designed to evaluate the experimental therapy’s ability to deliver a precise amount of vandetanib directly to the arteries feeding a liver tumor using a radiopaque bead which can be seen on CT scans.“The incidence and mortality rates for primary liver cancer continue to climb and it is vital that we explore new treatment approaches,” primary investigator Ricky Sharma said in prepared remarks.For full article follow link below BE HAPPYDAVE www.drugdeliverybusiness.com/researchers-treat-first-cancer-patients-btgs-microscopic-drug-loaded-beads/
d gaser
05 Oct 2017
Todays update plus aquasition I have been trying to get some info on the new company we have acquired ,( Roxwood ) to see what it does, and to see what it's turn over and profits are ,but unfortunately they are not divulged .The company is partly owned by Volcano Capital investments, they specialise in health care companies, and include venture capital, public equities and debt. They also provide funding and operational expertise see link below .www.volcanocap.com/secondary.asp?pageID=1 There are also links to Roxwood own website, which is very basic ,plus another showing Abbott entered into an agreement with Roxwood, to sell and market Roxwoods products see link below .www.massdevice.com/abbott-inks-distro-deal-roxwood-medical/ [link] As BTG have not given any clues as to Roxwoods turn over or profit margins, we can not see if this bolt on is a good buy or not see link below ,however, as Dave 297 says it will fit in well with our other products. and as for increasing sales act through our own sales force ,well I would have thought that would depend, on whether or not we can get out of the Abbott sales and distribution agreement that Roxwood signed with them on the 17 July this year .[link] for todays up date, well it seems to be inline with their forecast .I would have liked to have seen in that up date BTG had made an application to the European medical council for clearance of Varithena® in Europe, as varicose vain surgery, is now growing rapidly in the UK and Europe according to the latest research see link www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/varicose-vein-treatment-market-22524107.html .BE HAPPYDAVE
dave297
05 Oct 2017
Trading update today Seems pretty positive generally,(apart from the unfortunate successful claim against us) & todays bolt on acquisition looks like a decent move.
up protherics
30 Sep 2017
Enlightenment Could someone enlighten meApart from arrogant behaviour of the ceo and the finance director. What is BTG going to do to add to shareholder value during the next six months. Apart from collecting share options and honours handed out by the serfs that hold this good old British stock (Hopefully soon to be owned by an overseas competitor)????
nk1999
23 Sep 2017
Numis From Citywire (1-2 days ago):"BTG shares still good value despite court case blow, says NumisA Delaware court has ruled against drug developer BTG (BTG) over a distribution agreement but Numis said there would be little financial impact and the shares remained good value. Analyst Paul Cuddon retained his ‘buy’ recommendation and target price of 900p on the shares, which were flat at 667p yesterday.A Delaware court ruled against BTG in relation to a breach of a distribution agreement signed with WellStat Therapeutics in 2011 concerning the commercialisation of chemotherapy drug Vistoguard, which generated £3.5 million of sales in 2017. The disagreement lies in the effort BTG made in deploying a large enough salesforce to sell the drug. ‘We would expect BTG to appeal the ruling or otherwise seek to reduce the bill or return the rights,’ said Cuddon. ‘The $55.8 million settlement equates to 20% of BTG’s net cash resources and makes little difference to forecasts or valuation. The shares trade on less than 19x ex-cash price/earnings and remain good value in our view.’ At the time of writing the shares were trading down 0.9%, or 6p, at 661p."
up protherics
23 Sep 2017
Takeover INMHOThis stock has not plummeted due to the institutions ( Double ended sword ).I would imagine that they will be looking at some sort of recumpence as they have not only been materialy effected , but have had their already tarnished reputation eroded even more.Hopefully a takeover is now on the card
up protherics
23 Sep 2017
Future INMHOThis stock has not plummeted due to the institutions ( Double ended sword ).I would imagine that they will be looking at some sort of recumpence as they have not only been materialy effected , but have had their already tarnished reputation eroded even more.Hopefully a takeover is now on the card
up protherics
23 Sep 2017
Capitalism Unfortunatly it is known as capitalismAt least the US punishesses mistermeaners severly. Something which we have never learned as a nation.. Unless off course you fit into what the good old system deems as a criminal act.Says it all when honours are handed out like chocolate coloured sweets and don't forget share options and the dumping of stock before a negative RNS
RedSock
22 Sep 2017
Re: WHO should take the blame ? Overall conclusion is one of incompetence, intransigence, arrogance and dishonesty on the part of BTG management, including LM in particular. To the detriment of shareholders. Strange that there has been zero impact on the stock price - either factored in already or the market thinks that $56m+ is just the cost of doing business!Also makes it sound like a not especially pleasant place to work!
d gaser
22 Sep 2017
WHO should take the blame ? Im SORRY but my last post should not have been posted, as it wasn’t finished, I must have hit the wrong button before leaving my computer this morning.---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- - Reading the judgement posted here on the BB it makes my blood boil ,to read BTG were first approached by wellstadt with their suspicions many years ago but instead of talking to wellstadt, our management decided to instigated a breach of contract law suit against wellstadt instead ,now had the management agreed back then to return to the terms of that agreement ,then none of this would have happened ,and we would still be selling a licenced product for profit. How mad is that ?.I know from my own experience ,the last thing you do is attack a customer ,or a company you are working with, unless your 100% confident they had done something wrong, and that you could prove in a court of law and after talking to the company, to see if you could iron out the difficulties amicably ,but it appears in this case, BTG didn't do that ,and that to me ,that is asking for trouble. What's even more concerning about this, is that control of the sales & marketing budgets were changed after the agreement was signed, and would be detrimental to the launch of wellstedt product, and would break the terms of our contract with wellstadt, yet nobody at BTG saw this as a problem . To me all of this could have been avoided, had the BOD listened to Wellstads grievances in 2015. Had they done that ,then we wouldn’t be losing a product that could have made BTG a very good profit over many years, and for what is said to have been a very little amount of outlay according to the trial notes, and that to me is unforgivable, how this will play out with other clients, or with future clients ,I just don’t know, but as we all know 50% of business is about trust ,and if you lose that in the USA , then you are finished as most medical products in the U.S.A are purchased through a medical insurance syndicate . This whole sorry business shows how bad our marketing has been over the years, it could also explain why other BTG products we have launched in the USA, have also failed to meet expectations, or their growth predictions over the years ,and is something I, and many other posters on this BB have queried on several occasions , well maybe now we have the answer to all those questions ,as It seems to me, BTG either have a poor sales &marketing dept ,or B.T.G, lack the experience in the top echelons of the company, when it comes to sales &marketing .I know from my own experience in manufacturing and retail that most companies in UK today employ professional sales and marketing people ,as they know how to support a team of sales people and also know how to distribute a sales team across an area in order to maximise sales, they are also aware of the importance of marketing when launching a new product ,it’s their expertise of the market that is key to the success or failure of a product ,so if ,but if our management team can’t do that with in a set budget then heads should roll, I also believe ,that any shares received by the BOD through the BTG share initiative, should now be returned/or the cash repaid to the company, as they obviously failed in their responsibilities to the protect B.T.G shareholders profits, and the good name of the company ,But had the BOD acted upon wellstadt complaint back in 2015 things might be different now .Obviously we will never know the full story of what happened, or who was to blame for this mess ,but this sorry tale could have been soughed out amicably in 2015, and hopefully it still can be, as the judge has given both parties 21 days to find a settlement before ordering costs and payment .BE HAPPYDAVE ..
d gaser
22 Sep 2017
Re: Wellstat littigation costs BTG 55m Reading this judgement makes my blood boil ,it is clear from the info obtained,that BTG had the chance to man up and sought out this problem years ago when Wellstad first approached BTG with their suspicions ,but it appears instead our management team were not prepared to listen ,and they then instigated a breach of contract litigation against Wellstate, now how dumb was that .When I was running my business the last thing I would do is attack a company you are working with, unless you were100% confident you could prove your position in a court of law ,but in this case ,BTG ,C.E.O didn't do that ,in fact it appears they didn't even both to check the figures properly ,and what's even more concerning, is our CEO had taken control away from the sales & marketing dept. To me BTG were should have listened to Wellstads grievances as this company were offering us a chance to make good profit margins, for very little outlay , according to the trial notes .To me this trial has shown just how lucky this BOD has been over the years, it might also explain why other BTG products that have failed to produce the expected growth after their launch in the USA .this is some thing I have often spoken of ,well maybe we now have the answer . It seems to me that BTG have very poor sales &marketing management experience employed with in the top echelons of this company, all I know is that most companies employ professional sales and marketing people who new how to support a team ,and know how to distribute a sales team across an area to maximise their sales, and they can do that with in a set budget, if BTG can't achieve that , then heads should roll, I also believe any shares received by the BOD through the share initiative , should now be returned/repaid to the company as they obviously failed in there responsibilities to the shareholders, by taking this action ..BE HAPPYDav
Denis Filby
21 Sep 2017
Re: Wellstat littigation costs BTG 55m After skipping through the court judgement I can only agree with Mike. What a story of bad business decisions and seemingly sharp practice. Unless there are management changes I too will be looking to dispose of my shares at the earliest financially opportune moment.
Mike Land
21 Sep 2017
Re: Wellstat littigation costs BTG 55m And pretty damning as to how these execs think you launch new products. To run a business forgetting that new products need big initial promotion is to demonstrate that you are not competent. And with their big share incentives it implies they ran the overall business for their own short term p&l gain and not for the long term benefit of shareholders.The message is in the court documents - the CEO runs the business through arbitrary %age led actions and not from bottom up logical product led strategies ......... would not let her near my developed products!!!So no more distribution deals with anyone who has a big R&D product and is looking for a marketing partner. Bang goes a key strategy.Sorry guys the game is up.Sorry to say I am now accelerating my actions to dispose of my portfolio of shares.
RedSock
21 Sep 2017
Re: Wellstat littigation costs BTG 55m Just read the judgement from the Delaware Courts - it does not make for pleasant reading for the BTG execs, including the CEO. Pretty damning and hard to see how they could appeal with any convictioncourts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=262000
up protherics
21 Sep 2017
Re: Wellstat littigation costs BTG 55m Yes Dave G I did read the link.Very heavy going.. It makes you realise how difficult it is for companies like BTG to survive and grow. Something which I forget sometimes as an investor .Fingers crossed that they have progressed with Beads/Ekos/Reneurix and Varithena which would counteract all the current negatives.
