Ontvang nu dagelijks onze kooptips!

word abonnee
Van beleggers
voor beleggers
Uitgebreid zoeken

Beurscodes, betekenis en hulp bij zoeken

Europa

AEX
Euronext Amsterdam
BRU
Euronext Brussels
PSE
Euronext Paris
LIS
Euronext Lissabon
CHX
CBOE Europe, grote(re) EU aandelen
NAV
Investment Funds (NAV)

Noord-Amerika

NYS
New York Stock Exchange
OTC
CBOE BZX Exchange (US)
TSE
Toronto Stock Exchange

Kunt u een instrument niet vinden?

Zoek dan via de zogenaamde ISIN code. Elk instrument, aandeel etc. heeft een unieke code.

Kies vervolgens - wanneer er meerdere resultaten zijn - de notering op de beurs van uw keuze.

Waar vind ik die ISIN code?

Google de naam van het instrument, aandeel etc. met de toevoeging 'ISIN'.

Als zoeken op ISIN code geen resultaten oplevert hebben wij het instrument of aandeel niet in onze koersendatabase.

desktop iconMarkt Monitor
Markt vandaag Koersen Forum Premium IEX Expert
Home  /  Forum  /  BioPharma  /  INSM - Insmed - Deel 6

BioPharma« Terug naar discussie overzicht

INSM - Insmed - Deel 6

Volgen
2.348 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 ... 100 101 102 103 104 ... 118 »» | Laatste | Omlaag ↓
  2. [verwijderd] 20 oktober 2006 20:17
    quote:

    crackedtooth schreef:

    [quote=beleggerjan]
    Ik bespeur bij de "drukkers" zo nu en dan ff "paniek". Ze hebben het moeilijk. Volgens mij kan het niet lang meer duren of wij kunnen los.

    JAn
    [/quote]

    ye uptrend stijgt ook langzaam mee
    gister wat bij binck eruit op 1,39

    net weer terug op 1,32 bij interactive brokers
    was kleine pluk, maar fijn om zo funds te moven

    heb volledige positie nog steeds en houd dat ook zo

    Ja leuk werk...IB bevalt je dus goed!

    Heb full porto! en koop bij super news bij!

    JAn
  6. [verwijderd] 20 oktober 2006 20:25
    Mad je had beter kunnen wachten tot de bodem weer in zicht was 1.04
    Groet,
    WAT EEN 8 BAAN .

    quote:

    beleggerjan schreef:

    [quote=M.A.D.W.]
    Nou jongens ik heb net LMRA verkocht met 50% winst in 2 dagen tijd. Ik had 5000st op 4,99 gekocht en nu net verkocht op 7,60. Mijn winst stop ik weer in INSM dus weer lekker bijkopen.
    [/quote]

    Van harte Willem.

    Dus zo'n 10k INSM erbij. YES

    JAn
  8. [verwijderd] 20 oktober 2006 20:35
    Ja die LMRA gaat echt als een speer, misschien stijgt ie nog door maar ik vond 50% toch echt genoeg voor nu. Helaas had ik er niet meer dan 5000st gekocht maar goed winst is winst. Nu weer een nieuw tradersaandeel zoeken.

    Trouwens INSM bijkopen op dit niveau vind ik echt een koopje. De koers gaat echt niet meer naar de 1 dollar of er moet een injunction komen. Maar dat laatste gaan ik niet van uit.
  12. [verwijderd] 21 oktober 2006 16:38
    Legi, ik zag het hij is op 1,31 geeindigd.

    Nou nog maar 9 handelsdagen te gaan tot aan de rechtzaak. Ik ben benieuwd of er nog partijen gaan instappen of uitstappen in aanloop naar 6 november. Dus de komende 2 weken worden interessant. Ik denk dat er nog wat nerveuze beleggertjes er uit gaan stappen.
  13. [verwijderd] 21 oktober 2006 17:58
    quote:

    Do DD schreef:

    Legi, weet je zeker dat je ENCY hebt gekocht en niet ENCI?

    E., Weet jij wanneer er de uitspraak wordt verwacht over het herzieningsverzoek van de summary judgment? Dat moet toch ergens volgende week plaats gaan vinden? Ik begreep van posters op Yahoo dat Tercica hun bezwaar hebben gemaakt op hierziening? Heb jij nog enig zich hierop?

    Misschien kan iemand die nog zicht heeft op al die moties en bezwaren etc. een overzichtje maken?

    Thx. Gismo
  14. [verwijderd] 21 oktober 2006 18:14
    Gismo,

    Nee, weet ik niet helaas. Ik weet alleen de pretrial conference van
    27/10 as. om 01:30 PST begint. dat is 04:30 EST dus na sluiting van de beurs.

    Qua bezwaar herziening: ja, klopt, maar dat was te verwachten.

    (r)C-04-5429 Genentech v. Insmed
    Pretrial Conf.
    Plts. mo. for adverse jury instruction for the spoliation of evidence relating to written opinions of counsel
    Dfts. mos. in limine 1-14
    Plts. mos. in limine 1-10

    Deze pretrial gaat alleen maar over de spoliation zaken. Ik verwacht echter dat een uitspraak rondom de herziening ruim voor 6 november zal zijn.

    mvg, E.
    ps. in limine betekent dat het bewijsmateriaal vertrouwelijk wordt behandeld in de aanloop naar een jury trial. Beoordeling vindt dus alleen door de rechter plaats.
    Zie ook:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_limine
  16. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 21:46
    Vers van de Pacer pers:

    Date: October 11, 2006 FTR Time: 10:40-11:06 a.m.
    Case No: C04-5429 CW (EMC) Court Reporter: Connie Kuhl (415) 572-1519
    Case Name: Genentech v. Insmed, et al.
    Attorneys: William Gaede for Plaintiff Tercica
    David Bilsker for Defendant Insmed
    Deputy Clerk: Betty Fong
    PROCEEDINGS: ORDERED AFTER HEARING:
    (1) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
    THE SECOND EXPERT REPORT OF KEITH
    C. BACKMAN
    (2) -DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
    THIRD EXPERT REPORT OF KEITH C.
    BACKMAN
    (1) Defendants’ motion is granted in part and
    denied in part.
    (2) Defendants’ motion is denied.
    Court to issue order.
    Order to be prepared by: [ ] Plntf [ ] Deft [x] Court
    Case continued to:
    cc: EMC
    Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 647 Filed 10/11/2006 Page 1 of 1

    Dus toch een (klein) succes in de Backman motions.

    mvg, E.
  17. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 21:57
    En defendants brief:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    OAKLAND DIVISION
    GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
    TERCICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    INSMED INCORPORATED, a Virginia
    Corporation, CELTRIX
    PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware
    Corporation, and INSMED THERAPEUTIC
    PROTEINS, INC., a Colorado Corporation
    Defendants.
    AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

    Case No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC)
    DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF UNDER
    L.R. 16-10(B)(8) TO BIFURCATE THE
    ISSUES OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
    AND DAMAGES
    Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 660 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 7

    DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF UNDER L.R. 16-10(B)(8)
    .v
    WASH_1704525.1
    1
    TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on October 27, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 2 of the above-entitled Court, Defendants will move to bifurcate and separately phase the damages and willfulness phases after the jury renders a verdict on the liability phase of trial.
    Good cause for bifurcation exists under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) where to do so will avoid substantial prejudice to Defendants, will simplify issues for the jury’s convenience and may
    conserve judicial resources in the event that the jury finds in Defendants’ favor for no liability of even one of the three asserted patents.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    Bifurcating the issues of willfulness and damages from liability will reduce the potential of prejudice to Insmed, Inc., Celtrix Pharmaceuticals and Insmed Therapeutic Proteins, Inc. (“Defendants”), simplify issues for the convenience of the jury, and promote judicial economy. Trying the issue of willfulness with liability will prejudice Defendants in at least two ways. First, testimony regarding the competence of Defendants’ opinions and the subjective inquiry into their due care is irrelevant to on the objective analysis of the liability issues. Balancing such testimony with those of liability will therefore confuse the jury. Second, hearing testimony regarding willfulness may unfairly taint the jury on the liability issues, harming Defendants’ ability to put together a clean defense to the
    claims of infringement and validity. Conversely, Plaintiffs would suffer little or no prejudice from bifurcating the issues of willfulness and damages from liability. Because the willfulness and damages evidence do not substantially overlap with the liability claims, bifurcation would cause little harm or prejudice to Genentech, Inc. and Tercica, Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) presentation of their case in chief.
    Bifurcation would moreover simplify and distill the jury’s consideration of complex liability issues without having to consider willfulness and damages testimony and evidence having no bearing
    on the liability phase. The three asserted patents will require significantly different evidence for the liability phase alone. The fact that neither party has one expert witness who can alone testify with regard to all three asserted patents only underscores the complexity of the liability phase of trial.
    Finally, bifurcation of the willfulness and damages issues would serve judicial economy in the event that the jury finds in favor of Defendants on some or all of the liability issues, in which case the issues relating to willfulness or damages may either be reduced or eliminated.
    On balance, bifurcation makes sense. Defendants respectfully request this Court to bifurcate and phase the willfulness and damages inquiries after the liability phase of trial.
    II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
    Plaintiffs are asserting infringement by Defendants of three patents U.S. Patents Nos. 6,331,414 (the ’414 patent), 5,187,151 (the ’151 patent), and 5,258,287 (the ’287 patent). The three patents-insuit
    all relate to complex biotechnology methods and compounds directed to promote growth in children suffering from Severe Primary Insulin-Like Growth Factor Deficiency (“IGFD”).
    This Court previously construed disputed claim terms and phrases in all three asserted patents on June 30, 2006. In the same order, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of infringement of the ’414 patent.1 The remaining issues for trial, therefore, are non-infringement of the ’414, ’151 and ’287 patents, invalidity of the ’414 and ’287 patents and unenforceability of the ‘151 patent, and damages and willfulness analyses for all three patents. Trial is scheduled for November 6-22, 2006.
    On October 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge Edward Chen issued on order granting in part Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Second Expert Report of Keith Backman Ph.D. [Dkt. No. 648]. In that Order, the Magistrate held: “Plaintiffs may use the Second Backman Report only with respect to the issue of willfulness (i.e. not validity). The scope of Dr. Backman’s testimony on the issue of invalidity in the case in chief is defined by his first report.”
    III. LEGAL STANDARDS
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides, in relevant part: “[t]he court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conductive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third party claim, or of any separate issue . . . .” This Court has “broad discretion in separating issues and claims for trial as
    1 A portion of the Court’s determination of infringement of the ’414 patent is the subject of a pending motion for reconsideration.
    part of its wide discretion in trial management. Gardco Mfg., Inc. v. Herst Lighting Co., 820 F.2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 9 Charles Allan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2388 (2d ed. 2002) (Ultimately the question of separate trials under Rule 42(b) should be, and is, a matter left to the discretion of the trial court . . .”).
    IV. ARGUMENT
    A. Substantial Prejudice To Defendants Compels Bifurcation
    “Prejudice is the Court’s most important consideration in deciding whether to order separate trials under Rule 42(b).” Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 791 F. Supp. 113, 115-115 (E.D. La. 1992). This case proves no exception. The parties’ expert reports illustrate that the willfulness consideration relates to two main issues: 1) the competence of Insmed’s opinions and 2) Insmed’s due care. See, e.g., Declaration of Larry L. Shatzer (“Shatzer Decl.”) Ex. 1 (Defendants’ Rebuttal Expert Report of D. Hoscheit, at ¶6); Ex. 2 (Plaintiff’s Expert Report of J. Forstner at ¶ 27).
    Testimony on the competence of Insmed’s opinions and its state of mind and its diligent efforts to avoid infringing the asserted patents and Plaintiff’s criticisms of those opinions and efforts, however, simply has no relevance to the non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability liability issues. Permitting such testimony will, therefore, not only distract and confuse the jury from deciding the liability issues before it, but may also unfairly influence the jury’s consideration of those liability issues:
    It is well-settled that the issue of whether a defendant is liable for increased damages because it willfully infringed a patent is determined by the judge and not the jury.
    Evidence of willfulness should be presented in an environment that insures the jury will not be influenced by it.
    Accordingly, the Court finds that if it were to take evidence on all issues about liability, damages and willful infringement together, there would be a substant
  19. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:00
    vervolg

    Accordingly, the Court finds that if it were to take evidence on all issues about liability, damages and willful infringement together, there would be a substantial risk of the type of prejudice from jury confusion contemplated by Rule 42(b).
    Laitram, 791 F. Supp. at 116-117 (citations omitted).
    The potential confusion and prejudice is demonstrated by the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Keith Backman. Dr. Backman provided an expert report on invalidity several months ago. Just a few weeks ago Dr. Backman provided a second expert report that purported to address willfulness, but in fact, contained several new opinions on the question of validity. Defendants moved to strike the Second Backman Report to the extent it contained new opinions on invalidity that should have been contained in his initial expert report. As noted above, Magistrate Judge Chen granted that motion in part and precluded Dr. Backman’s opinions from his second report from being used on
    the issue of invalidity. The only practical way Judge Chen’s order can be effectuated and Plaintiffs can be prevented Plaintiffs from circumventing it is to bifurcate willfulness from the liability issues
    so that the jurors will not be exposed to Dr. Backman’s new opinions until they address the question of willfulness, if necessary.
    In contrast to the potential of prejudice to Defendants, Plaintiffs’ testimony, Plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice by bifurcating the issues of willfulness and damages. There is little overlap between the issues of willfulness and, damages or liability. Neither parties’ testifying willfulness and damages experts will testify on any other subject; there will, therefore, be no overlap of or need to recall witnesses.
    The risk of prejudice to Defendants can easily be avoided without disturbing this Court’s trial schedule or even requiring a separate jury. Prior court decisions on bifurcation provide a good model upon which this case may be bifurcated. For example, The jury will first consider the issue of liability; and, after that determination is
    made, they will reconvene for further evidence on the question of damages. Thus it would be after the liability issue had been determined that the jury would first hear evidence concerning defense counsel’s advice to the defendant concerning the issues of validity and/or infringement.
    … This case can be resolved in a more expeditious manner, convening a single jury who, if needed, would in a second phase of trial consider the defendant’s willfulness in the totality of the circumstances, without having to re-present selected evidence.
    This bifurcation with a single jury can avoid any actual prejudice to the defendant in the presentation of the evidence and a potential risk of confusion to the jury.
    Patent Holding Co. v. TG (USA) Corp., 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1566, 1568 (E.D. Mich. 1998) (emphasis added).
    As in Patent Holding, this case would equally benefit from separating the trial into phases, such that the jury considers and decides the issues of liability first, and then, if necessary, considers the issues of damages and willfulness. See Laitram, 791 F. Supp. at 117 (“All of defendant’s concerns regarding prejudice from jury confusion can be treated by separating the issues for trial within a single proceeding.”); Novopharm Ltd. v. TorPharm, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 308, 311 (E.D.N.C. 1998) (“Delaying an adjudication on willfulness, even absent a specific showing of a threat to the attorney-client privilege, avoids ‘even the possibility of prejudice to a patent defendant’s litigation rights.’”) (quoting Princeton Biochems., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 254, 260 (D.N.J. 1997) (“this Court has averted any possibility of prejudice to defendant by reserving the
    question of willfulness pending a finding of liability.”)).
    B. Simplification Of The Issues For The Convenience Of The Jury Weighs In Favor Of Bifurcation
    Bifurcation of willfulness and damages from the liability phase of trial will also significantly simplify the issues for the jury’s deliberation. First, the liability phase will require detailed explanations of complex technology for not one, but three, patents-at-issue. The technology at issue here is complicated, requiring an understanding of recombinant DNA technology and complex
    biotechnology issues. In particular, the ’414 patent pertains to methods for manufacturing human IGFI through recombinant DNA technology, the ’151 patent pertains to methods of administering the
    human IGF-I and its binding protein IGFBP-3 to patients, and the ’287 patent pertains to a particular IGFBP-3 molecule. These differences in each of the three asserted patents will require significantly different evidence for the liability phase. For evidence of the differing proffers of liability proofs, this Court need look no further than to the number of experts who have separately opined with regard to the non-infringement and invalidity issues. See Parties’ Proposed Witness Lists filed with the Joint Pretrial Order. Neither party has only one expert who can testify with regard to all three asserted patents. The jury will therefore need to hear testimony from multiple expert witnesses and fact witnesses and consider potentially as much as a thousand trial exhibits on the liability phase alone.
    The complexity does not end with the liability phase. If the jury finds all three asserted patents valid and infringed, it will then need to consider both parties’ damages theories, requiring consideration of both lost profits and tiered reasonable royalty economic theories. Even the willfulness inquiry alone will be complex and particularly fact intensive as evidenced by the separate opinions
    Insmed obtained for each asserted patent. See, e.g., Shatzer Decl., Ex. 1 (Hoscheit Expert Report).
    Dividing the trial into an initial liability phase and a second damages and willfulness phase would therefore focus the jury’s attention on the issues before it without distracting and irrelevant testimony to each phase of trial. Patent Holding Co., 46 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1568.
    C. Judicial Economy Favors Bifurcation
    Judicial economy would be served by trying the liability issues separate from willfulness and damages. Gen. Patent Corp. v. Microcomputer, 1997 WL 1051899 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 1997)
    (“bifurcation is particularly appropriate when resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire case”). Should the jury find in favor of Defendants, the issues relating to willfulness and damages will either be reduced or eliminated.
    Here, if the jury finds in Defendants’ favor for even one or two of the three asserted patents, the damages and willfulness phase will be narrowed significantly to only that evidence relating to the patent for which liability was found. Defendants procured separate opinions for each of the patents at issue and as can be seen from the expert reports on willfulness the issues related to the willful infringement analysis as to each patent is distinct and fact intensive. See Shatzer Decl. Exs. 1 and 2.
    V. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request that this Court enter an order bifurcating Plaintiff’s willfulness and damages claims and order that trial proceed in two sequential phases: liability, and after the jury verdict on liability, damages and willfulness.
    Respectfully submitted,
    DATE: October 13, 2006 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
    _______________/s/___________
    Larry L. Shatzer
    Counsel f
2.348 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 ... 100 101 102 103 104 ... 118 »» | Laatste |Omhoog ↑

Direct naar Forum

Markt Vandaag

Stijgers

instrument koers absoluut verschil relatief verschil
Basic-Fit 25,280 +1,28 +5,33%
ASML 663,500 +29,30 +4,62%
AMG Critical Materials N.V. 16,880 +0,66 +4,07%
BESI 103,950 +3,05 +3,02%
FASTNED 22,350 +0,60 +2,76%
TomTom 5,125 +0,11 +2,19%
PROSUS 39,340 +0,84 +2,18%
NX FILTRATION 4,680 +0,09 +2,07%
RANDSTAD NV 43,560 +0,88 +2,06%
Kendrion 11,560 +0,22 +1,94%
ADYEN NV 1.415,800 +23,80 +1,71%
Fugro 21,700 +0,36 +1,69%
ArcelorMittal 22,470 +0,36 +1,63%
PostNL 1,137 +0,02 +1,61%
Pharming 0,808 +0,01 +1,57%
ABN AMRO BANK N.V. 15,625 +0,24 +1,56%
Aperam 25,980 +0,38 +1,48%
INPOST 18,720 +0,25 +1,35%
ALLFUNDS GROUP 5,280 +0,07 +1,34%
Akzo Nobel 63,560 +0,78 +1,24%
SIGNIFY NV 22,420 +0,26 +1,17%
DSM FIRMENICH AG 117,150 +1,30 +1,12%
JDE PEET'S 18,950 +0,20 +1,07%
Vastned 24,700 +0,25 +1,02%
Wereldhave 14,980 +0,14 +0,94%
Ahold Delhaize 30,750 +0,24 +0,79%
ASMI 517,400 +4,00 +0,78%
JUST EAT TAKEAWAY 11,040 +0,08 +0,78%
Aegon 5,924 +0,04 +0,75%
EBUSCO HOLDING 0,701 +0,01 +0,72%
TKH 38,040 +0,24 +0,63%
Alfen N.V. 12,115 +0,08 +0,62%
ACOMO 17,400 +0,10 +0,58%
Flow Traders 21,720 +0,12 +0,56%
NSI 20,250 +0,10 +0,50%
AEX 902,63 +4,00 +0,45%
Corbion 25,120 +0,08 +0,32%
ASCX 1.265,50 +3,38 +0,27%
Heineken 78,400 +0,18 +0,23%
Galapagos 27,940 +0,06 +0,22%
AALBERTS NV 33,580 +0,06 +0,18%
AZERION 1,432 +0,00 +0,14%
AMX 897,96 +1,17 +0,13%
Brunel 8,830 +0,01 +0,11%
ASR Nederland 45,110 +0,05 +0,11%
Fagron 18,760 +0,02 +0,11%
BAM 4,678 +0,00 +0,09%
Arcadis 66,100 +0,05 +0,08%
EXOR NV 98,650 +0,05 +0,05%
IMCD 151,850 +0,05 +0,03%
B&S Group SA 4,840 0,00 0,00%
Philips Koninklijke 29,490 0,00 0,00%
UMG 24,100 0,00 0,00%
Van Lanschot Kempen NV 44,700 0,00 0,00%

Dalers

instrument koers absoluut verschil relatief verschil
WDP 22,420 -1,10 -4,68%
Avantium 2,580 -0,06 -2,46%
RELX 44,300 -0,62 -1,38%
Wolters Kluwer 159,350 -1,60 -0,99%
Sif Holding 14,060 -0,14 -0,99%
ForFarmers 3,255 -0,03 -0,91%
SBM Offshore 16,880 -0,15 -0,88%
Eurocommercial Properties 24,400 -0,20 -0,81%
RENEWI 7,540 -0,06 -0,79%
UNILEVER PLC 57,880 -0,46 -0,79%
HEIJMANS KON 25,950 -0,20 -0,76%
THEON INTERNAT 9,240 -0,07 -0,75%
SHELL PLC 30,735 -0,23 -0,73%
Nedap N.V. 56,000 -0,40 -0,71%
Sligro 12,260 -0,08 -0,65%
CTP 16,860 -0,10 -0,59%
Air France-KLM 9,036 -0,05 -0,51%
ING 15,950 -0,03 -0,21%
NN Group 46,410 -0,09 -0,19%
Accsys 0,613 0,00 -0,16%
CM.COM 6,970 -0,01 -0,14%
Vopak 42,000 -0,06 -0,14%
OCI 25,040 -0,01 -0,04%
KPN 3,795 0,00 -0,03%
vlag naam koers verschil relatief verschil
AEX 902,84 +4,21 +0,47%
AEX GR 3.527,58 +15,31 +0,44%
Germany40^ 19.651,40 +68,01 +0,35%
FTSE 100 8.353,98 -31,15 -0,37%
EURO50 4.982,06 +36,92 +0,75%
US30^ 43.163,00 -90,80 -0,21%
Nasd100^ 20.339,10 +145,30 +0,72%
US500^ 5.859,80 +17,47 +0,30%
Japan225^ 39.095,90 -93,30 -0,24%
VD-NEW 16,59 -0,54 -3,17%
#/^ Index indications calculated real time, zie disclaimer