SecProbe.io

Filing text and metadata
Intelligence Terminal Search Probe Scores Topics IPO Watchlist Monthly Activity About API

SEC Comment Letter for Anixa Biosciences Inc (ANIX) (CIK 0000715446) (ANIX) — Sep 28, 2010

Anixa Biosciences Inc (ANIX) (CIK 0000715446)
Date: Sept. 28, 2010 · CIK: 0000715446 · Accession: 0000000000-10-057069

AI Filing Summary & Sentiment

Sentiment
Urgency
Document Type
Confidence
SEC Posture
Company Posture

Summary

Reasoning

Date
September 28, 2010
Author
Peggy Kim
Form
UPLOAD
Company
Anixa Biosciences Inc (ANIX) (CIK 0000715446)

Letter

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549-0303 DIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE Mail Stop 3628 September 28, 2010 By Facsimile and U.S. Mail Michael Schwamm, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036-4086 Re: Copytele, Inc. Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A Filed September 27, 2010 File No. 0-11254

Dear Mr. Schwamm:

We have the following comment on the above referenced filing:

1. We note the Committee to Enhance Copytele filed a preliminary proxy statement on May 28, 2010, so it appears that Copytele was awar e of the Committee to Enhance Copytele’s intent to nominate directors. It appears th at Copytele should have filed its proxy statement in preliminary form. See Rule 14a-6(a) and Telephone Interpretation G.2. in the July 2001 Supplement to the Division of Corporation Finance’s Manual of Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations. Please explain s upplementally why you believe the company was eligible to file its proxy statement in definitive form under Rule 14a-6(a)(1) when the staff has stated publicly that it is inconsistent with Rule 14a-9 when the initial definitive proxy statement does not disclose the existenc e of a solicitation in opposition when the registrant knows, or reasonably shou ld know, of a solici tation in opposition.

Please respond to our comment promptly. You should furnish a response letter and you should transmit the letter via EDGAR under th e label “CORRESP.” In the event that you believe that compliance with any of the above comments is inappropriate , provide a basis for such belief to the staff in the response letter.

Michael Schwamm, Esq. Duane Morris LLP September 28, 2010 Page 2 Please direct any questions to me at ( 202) 551-3411. You may also contact me via facsimile at (202) 772-9203. Please send all correspondence to us at the following ZIP code: 20549-3628. Sincerely, Peggy Kim S p e c i a l C o u n s e l Office of Mergers & Acquisitions

Show Raw Text
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549-0303

       DIVISION OF
CORPORATION FINANCE

Mail Stop 3628

September 28, 2010

By Facsimile and U.S. Mail

Michael Schwamm, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036-4086
Re:   Copytele, Inc.   Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
Filed September 27, 2010 File No. 0-11254

Dear Mr. Schwamm:

We have the following comment on the above referenced filing:

1. We note the Committee to Enhance Copytele filed a preliminary proxy statement on May
28, 2010, so it appears that Copytele was awar e of the Committee to Enhance Copytele’s
intent to nominate directors.  It appears th at Copytele should have filed its proxy statement
in preliminary form.  See Rule 14a-6(a) and Telephone Interpretation G.2. in the July 2001
Supplement to the Division of Corporation Finance’s Manual of Publicly Available
Telephone Interpretations.  Please explain s upplementally why you believe the company
was eligible to file its proxy statement in definitive form under Rule 14a-6(a)(1) when the
staff has stated publicly that it is inconsistent  with Rule 14a-9 when the initial definitive
proxy statement does not disclose the existenc e of a solicitation in opposition when the
registrant knows, or reasonably shou ld know, of a solici tation in opposition.

Please respond to our comment promptly.  You should furnish a response letter and you
should transmit the letter via EDGAR under th e label “CORRESP.”  In the event that you
believe that compliance with any of the above comments is inappropriate , provide a basis for
such belief to the staff in the response letter.

Michael Schwamm, Esq.
Duane Morris LLP September 28, 2010 Page 2
Please direct any questions to me at ( 202) 551-3411.  You may also contact me via
facsimile at (202) 772-9203.  Please send all correspondence to us at the following ZIP code:  20549-3628.                                  Sincerely,                                       Peggy Kim         S p e c i a l  C o u n s e l          Office of Mergers & Acquisitions