And Now For Something Completely Different: $PVCT

Provectus' share price opened at $0.64 on August 22nd, a price it had closed at on August 21st and 20th, and August 1st and July 30th, and July 12th, and July 3rd, 2nd and 1st, and... Following Moffitt Cancer Center's August 22nd release of its rather startlingly titled press release Single Injection May Revolutionize Melanoma Treatment, Moffitt Study Shows, the share price closed at $0.63, down a cent from its open that day. The following day the share price closed at, you guessed it, $0.64. Average daily trading volume for the week numbered just north of 96,000 shares.

This week closed with a share price of $1.04 and an average daily trading volume (for the week) of a little more than 848,000, nearly 9 times that of the week Moffitt's PR came out.

In between:

• Agora Financial came out with a newsletter alert about the company on August 27th,
• Peter traveled to China a third time the week of September 2nd,
• Provectus issued a PR about its ECCO 2012 abstract on September 12th,
• The company issued a PR about its new and novel synthesis patent on September 13th,
• An interview of Peter by The Wall Street Transcript ("TWST") was published on September 16th, and
• An interview of Peter by The Life Sciences Report ("TLSR") was published on September 19th.

Peter said very bold and interesting things in the TWST interview, which the company later revised (the original version was circulated via Provectus News, while the revised version is available on Provectus' website via the link above). He followed this up with equally bold language in the TLSR interview, which effectively was another press release (having been paid for by the company), albeit an informative one.

But, I don't think the stock jumped 40% in two weeks because Peter was bold (the share price moved dramatically in the last couple of days, as high as $1.14, a figure not seen since May 2011).

I think the market sniffed something(s) out: A China deal. Peter was in New York ostensibly, it would seem, to try to close a regional license transaction. Did he? Regulatory clarity. We've been waiting for what seems like forever for the moving playing field of oncology to stop moving. Did it? Time will tell if the market was correct.

To add to the anticipation of next week and the week after: First, Moffitt will hold a symposium on September 28th, Update for Clinicians on Diagnosis and Treatment of Melanoma and Other Cutaneous Malignancies, where one hopes PV-10 is mentioned. Second, Provectus' ECCO 2013 poster presentation will be made September 30th, when one hopes a PR or two are issued by the company to provide much more data from the MM Phase 2 final clinical study report.

Peter's TWST transcript revision is interesting. It was changed from "So our goals are to be in a Phase III trial in melanoma or submitting for FDA approval, and to be in Phase II in liver cancer, potentially with breakthrough therapy designation, because we have also filed the application for breakthrough therapy designation in both the melanoma and liver indications" to "So our goals are to be in a Phase III trial in melanoma or submitting for  FDA approval, and to be in Phase II in liver cancer, potentially with breakthrough therapy designation, which means an application for breakthrough therapy designation in both the melanoma and liver indications."

Transcription error? I doubt it. Slip of the tongue, or pen? Maybe, on two counts. First, I think next week should commence the earliest we might hear about regulatory clarity (as I previously wrote, and framed in the first of two blog polls). Second, with the incredible success of the 6-patient HCC Phase 1 trial, and patients already treated in the expanded Phase 1 trial, achieving breakthrough therapy designation for this indication would seem highly probable (I think the company will have much more to say about this indication, and there interaction with the FDA about it).

We are, however, approaching the end of the quarter, around when, whether before or after, the company undertakes a BDO-induced fund raising to maintain the accounting firm's going concern opinion of Provectus. Balancing this need to raise capital, or perhaps satiating it in full and then some, is the potential exercise of warrants priced at $1.00. As at December 31, 2012, there were approximately 14 million of these warrants outstanding and exercisable (out of about 30 million warrants with a weighted average exercise price of $1.05).

Since then, the company:

• Issued 1.9 million warrants to consultants in exchange for services during the three months ended March 31, while about 900K were forfeited,
• Issued 2.6 million warrants to consultants in exchange for services during the three months ended June 30, while about 1.1 million were forfeited,
• During the three months ended March 31, issued 7.8 million $1.00 warrants, which includes fee-based warrants to Network 1 Financial,
• During the three months ended June 30, issued 5.6 million $1.00 warrants (including those to N1), and
• Issued 4.3 million $1.00 warrants related to February's Series A 8% Convertible Preferred Stock issuance.

The above reconciles with the 50.3 millions warrants outstanding and exercisable as at June 30, 2013 on page 9 of the most recent 10-Q. Assuming the consultant warrants have an exercise price of $1.00 (both issued and forfeited), there are nearly 35 million $1.00 warrants as at June 30. Speaking to the company and several capital markets folks on this issue, the prevailing view is that a share price in the $1.25-1.50 range will cause a substantial portion of these warrants to be exercised and provide the company with a large amount of cash. Some of the resultant common stock may be subsequently sold at those or slightly higher share prices, while others may be held longer or much longer.

The next couple of weeks should provide several opportunities for news flow (e.g., a China deal, regulatory clarity, Moffitt, ECCO, CAB, etc.), and a completely different situation for the share price.