Servotronics Deal Rewrite Ignites Shareholder Value
Servotronics, Inc. (NYSE:SVT) announced that the company, along with TransDigm Group Incorporated (NYSE:TDG), has made adjustments to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, raising the tender offer price to $47 per share from $38 per share in cash for all outstanding shares. This decision was taken soon after the company received an unsolicited takeover proposal from a third party. While the external offer is not the one that can be prioritized, it signals enhanced shareholder value.
A close-up of a scientist's hands manipulating a high-powered microscope to view cells.
The servo-control components provider, encompassing manufacturing capabilities for aircraft, jet engines, and missiles, signifies a specialized acquisition prey in the aerospace supply chain. Although the transaction still faces the regulatory approval process and closing conditions, among other challenges, the acquisition perfectly syncs with TransDigm's portfolio expansion plans.
This is a major factor in the current stock movement, with investors reacting positively to this update, translating to a stock rise. Now that the news is out, investors are staying tuned for the next move, hoping the tender offer delivers even more attractive returns. SVT has surged by nearly 328% since the start of 2025.
While we acknowledge the potential of SVT as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than SVT and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about the
READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires.
Disclosure. None.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Five reasons the New York Knicks lost the Eastern Conference finals
The New York Knicks will have plenty of time to dissect what went wrong in the Eastern Conference finals. New York was trying to make its first NBA Finals since 1999, and, after being eliminated in consecutive years by the Indiana Pacers, the Knicks must be proactive and honest about changes they will need to make to break through. Advertisement For one, the team relies so significantly on All-Star point guard Jalen Brunson that he's often tasked with saving New York. But that's just the beginning. OPINION: Small-market Pacers party down in big way with NBA Finals trip MORE: Pascal Siakam named Eastern Conference finals MVP after Pacers down Knicks Five reasons why the New York Knicks lost the Eastern Conference finals against the Indiana Pacers: 1. Going down 0-2 at home Teams simply cannot gift games during the postseason, especially during the conference finals. Game 1, when the Knicks held a nine-point lead with 58.8 seconds left to play, was the epitome of a missed opportunity. The Knicks actually held a 17-point lead midway through the fourth quarter, but they became complacent and could not answer Indiana's pace. It was bad enough for the Knicks to drop the series opener at home, but it was even worse when they dropped Game 2 in the Garden to fall behind 0-2 headed to Indiana. 2. Trying to match Indiana's tempo From Game 1, it appeared that Knicks coach Tom Thibodeau's preference was to try to match Indiana's speed, rather than to grind games down. It would turn out to be misguided. The Knicks ranked 27th in the regular season in pace, generating 97.64 possessions per 48 minutes. Indiana ranked seventh (100.76). While the Knicks sometimes did have success against the Detroit Pistons and Boston Celtics in the earlier rounds when pushing tempo, New York would've been far better off slowing the game against the Pacers because this was exactly how Indiana wanted to play. 3. Turnovers The Knicks committed more turnovers than the Pacers in all but one of the games, and New York lost the turnover margin overall, 93-75. In itself, that's pretty bad, but it gets worse. Because of the speed with which the Pacers play, those turnovers turned into easy offense: the Pacers posted a crushing 140-61 advantage in points off turnovers throughout the series. 4. Transition defense The previous point feeds somewhat into this. But whether it was off of turnovers, missed shots or even out of inbounds passes on made attempts, New York did not sustain precise focus on spotting Pacers leaking out in transition. While physically demanding, Thibodeau could've done more to tweak strategy, insisting that players drop back to prevent fastbreak chances. The Pacers registered more fastbreak points than New York in every game this series. Frankly, that was always going to be the likely outcome; the margin is what was concerning. The Pacers scored 106 fastbreak points across the six games, while the Knicks put up just 48. 5. Tom Thibodeau's inconsistent use of the bench Knicks center Mitchell Robinson battles for the ball against Pacers forward Pascal Siakam, rear, and center Myles Turner (33) during Game 6. It wasn't until Game 3 of the series, after the Knicks were already desperate and down 0-2, that Thibodeau tweaked the rotation to match up better with Indiana. Thibodeau has always been a coach set in his ways, and his reluctance to go with fresher legs — against a team that sprints up and down the floor — was baffling. This is magnified further because guards Delon Wright and Landry Shamet are known to be plus-defenders, something New York sorely needed earlier in the series when Indiana's guards were scoring at will. Thibodeau did receive some credit when he eventually extended his rotation; it came far too late. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: New York Knicks: Eastern Conference finals loss explained
Medscape
9 minutes ago
- Medscape
Which Class of ER Degrader Is Better?
Vepdegestrant, an investigational estrogen receptor (ER) degrader, known as a proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC ), outshone the commonly used selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) fulvestrant in a phase 3 trial of second-line treatment for a subset of patients with breast cancer. The VERITAC-2 trial included patients with ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-), locally advanced or metastatic disease who had failed prior treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors and endocrine therapy, and no exposure to chemotherapy in the advanced setting. Only a subset of the study cohort, those with estrogen receptor 1-mutant disease, experienced a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when treated with vepdegestrant compared with patients treated with fulvestrant. 'These results support vepdegestrant as a potential monotherapy treatment option for patients with previously treated ESR1 -mutant ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer,' said lead author Erika P. Hamilton, MD, a medical oncologist and director of Breast Cancer and Gynecologic Cancer Research at Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, during a press conference for the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. The findings were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine . Vepdegestrant is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, but received fast-track status in February 2024 as monotherapy for this patient population. It is the first and only PROTAC ER degrader to be evaluated in a phase 3 clinical trial in breast cancer. PROTACs represent a novel class of therapeutic agents that harness the proteasome to selectively degrade target proteins. 'There's no established consensus for patients getting treatment in the second-line setting after progression on endocrine therapy and a CDK 4/6 inhibitor,' explained Hamilton. 'One of the mainstays of our treatment really has been fulvestrant, which clearly has some challenges. First, it's administered intramuscularly, and second, in a post-CDK 4/6 landscape, we know that progression-free survival is very short — on the order of less than 2 months.' Besides fulvestrant, the oral SERD elacestrant was FDA-approved in January 2023, and other oral SERDs are in development, she noted. Trial Design The new trial included 624 patients with advanced ER+/HER2- disease that had progressed following one or two lines of endocrine therapy and a CDK 4/6 inhibitor. 'They could not have received fulvestrant already or chemotherapy, and patients had to have benefited from their previous line of endocrine therapy for at least 6 months to enter the study,' Hamilton noted. Study participants were also stratified by the presence or absence of visceral disease, as well as the presence of an ESR1 mutation (n = 270). Such mutations are a common cause of acquired resistance found in approximately 40% of patients in the second-line setting, according to a press release from the drug developer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day treatment cycles of either 200 mg oral vepdegestrant once daily, or 500 mg intramuscular fulvestrant on day 1 and day 15 of the first cycle, and then on day 1 of each subsequent cycle. The primary endpoint was PFS by blinded, independent central review, first in patients with ESR1 mutations and then in the entire cohort. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival, objective response rate, and clinical benefit rate, which was defined as the rate of confirmed clinical or partial response at any time, or stable disease, nonclinical response, or nonprogressive disease for at least 24 weeks. Vepdegestrant vs Fulvestrant The study met its key primary endpoint, showing a median PFS of 5.0 months with vepdegestrant compared with 2.1 months with fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; P < .001) in the 270 patients with ESR1 mutations. At 6 months, twice as many patients in the vepdegestrant arm remained progression-free compared with those in the fulvestrant arm (45.2% vs 22.7%). However, this primary endpoint was not significantly different between groups when calculated for the entire patient population (HR, 0.83; P = .07). For the key secondary endpoints, among patients with ESR1 mutations, the clinical benefit rate was more than double in patients receiving vepdegestrant (42.1% vs 20.2%). Similarly, the objective response rate was more than four times higher (18.6% vs 4%) Commenting in a press release, ASCO breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, said that although the trial found that vepdegestrant worked better than fulvestrant in patients with ESR1 mutations, 'on average, patients did not have prolonged responses on either agent, highlighting the need for combination therapies and continued development in this space.' Meisel is co-director of Breast Medical Oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. 'Overall survival was very immature at the time of this analysis, with only 20% of the anticipated events occurring,' added lead investigator Hamilton. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to discontinuation in 3% of patients taking vepdegestrant and 1% of patients taking fulvestrant. TEAEs leading to dose reductions occurred in 2% of the vepdegestrant group and none in the fulvestrant group. The three most common AEs of any grade were fatigue (27% in vepdegestrant group, 16% fulvestrant group) and increased aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels of any grade (14% vepdegestrant group, 10% fulvestrant group). Oral SERDS vs Vepdegestrant Side Effects Compared to oral SERDs, vepdegestrant has a favorable side effect profile, Hamilton said. 'Oral SERDs have prominent GI side effects as their most frequent side effect.' But, across all grades, rates of both vomiting and diarrhea were only 6% with vepdegestrant. GI side effects tend to be more common, 'in the 30% or 40% range with oral SERDs,' she told Medscape Medical News . Study discussant William John Gradishar, MD, emphasized the importance of reducing side effects. ' Vepdegestrant now joins a growing list of drugs that perform better than current standard of care monotherapy' in the ESR1 -mutant population, he noted in the session. But the reality is that most of these drugs are being developed to be used in combination with targeted therapies, 'and increased toxicity can be expected with doublet therapy…Quality of life measures as experienced and reported by patients are critical, and even modest changes in symptom and functional domains should not be minimized,' said Gradishar, professor of breast oncology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 'Vepdegestrant has demonstrated compelling preclinical activity and encouraging early clinical data supporting its efficacy in degrading ER,' said Albert Grinshpun, MD, in an interview with Medscape Medical News . Grinshpun, head of the Breast Cancer Service at Shaare Zedek Medical Center and The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, said his initial takeaway from the study is that 'vepdegestrant now stands alongside other oral SERDs, such as elacestrant and imlunestrant, in demonstrating superiority over fulvestrant, specifically in the context of ESR1 -mutant [disease].' 'Importantly, the treatment landscape for patients progressing on CDK 4/6 inhibitors is rapidly evolving, with a growing shift toward combination therapies rather than fulvestrant monotherapy,' he said. 'In my view, vepdegestrant has established itself as a promising endocrine backbone for future combination strategies. Its favorable toxicity profile makes it particularly well-suited for pairing with a range of targeted agents or even antibody-drug conjugates, including inhibitors of PIK3CA and KAT6 , in the pursuit of more effective therapeutic regimens.' The study was jointly funded by Arvinas Estrogen Receptor, Inc. and Pfizer. Hamilton disclosed consulting or advisory roles with Accutar Biotechnology (Inst), Arvinas (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Circle Pharma (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Ellipses Pharma (Inst), Entos (Inst), Fosun Pharma (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Jazz Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Jefferies (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Medical Pharma Services (Inst), Mersana (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Olema Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Stemline Therapeutics (Inst), Tempus (Inst), Theratechnologies (Inst), Tubulis GmbH (Inst), Verascity Science (Inst), and Zentalis (Inst). Hamilton has also received research funding from AbbVie (Inst), Accutar Biotech (Inst), Acerta Pharma (Inst), ADC Therapeutics (Inst), Akeso Biopharma (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Aravive (Inst), ArQule (Inst), Artios (Inst), Arvinas (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), AtlasMedx (Inst), BeiGene (Inst), Black Diamond Therapeutics (Inst), Bliss Biopharmaceutical (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Compugen (Inst), Context Therapeutics (Inst), Cullinan Oncology (Inst), Curis (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Inst), Dantari (Inst), Deciphera (Inst), Duality Biologics (Inst), eFFECTOR Therapeutics (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Ellipses Pharma (Inst), Elucida Oncology (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst), Fochon Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Fujifilm (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), H3 Biomedicine (Inst), Harpoon (Inst), Hutchison MediPharma (Inst), Immunogen (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Infinity Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Inspirna (Inst), InventisBio (Inst), Jacobio (Inst), K-Group Beta (Inst), Karyopharm Therapeutics (Inst), Kind Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Leap Therapeutics (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Loxo (Inst), Lycera (Inst), MabSpace Biosciences (Inst), Macrogenics (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Mersana (Inst), Merus (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Molecular Templates (Inst), Myriad Genetics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Nucana (Inst), Olema Pharmaceuticals (Inst), OncoMed (Inst), Oncothyreon (Inst), ORIC Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Orinove (Inst), Orum Therapeutics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Pieris Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Pionyr (Inst), Plexxikon (Inst), Prelude Therapeutics (Inst), ProfoundBio (Inst), Radius Health (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Relay Therapeutics (Inst), Repertoire Immune Medicines (Inst), Rgenix (Inst), Seagen (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Shattuck Labs (Inst), Silverback Therapeutics (Inst), Stem CentRx (Inst), Stemline Therapeutics (Inst), Sutro Biopharma (Inst), Syndax (Inst), Syros Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), TapImmune Inc. (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Tolmar (Inst), Torque (Inst), Treadwell Therapeutics (Inst), Verastem (Inst), Zenith Epigenetics (Inst), and Zymeworks (Inst). Meisel disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, GE Healthcare, Genentech, Novartis, Olema Oncology, Pfizer, SeaGen, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, and Stemline, and research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Olema Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Seagen (Inst), and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst). Grinshpun disclosed honoraria from GSK, Lilly, Novartis, and AstraZeneca, and travel from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Gradishar disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca , Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer.
CBS News
14 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 1, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Democrat of Illinois, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 1, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, that's Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi. He's in Illinois. Good morning to you. I want to get-- REP. KRISHNAMOORTHI: --Good morning. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get straight to it. You heard from the Secretary of State this week that the State Department is going to work with Homeland Security to aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields. There are like 300,000 Chinese students with visas in this country. The U.S. government already has a heightened level of vetting. What's going to change? REP. KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't know. There's not enough details, but what it looks like if they're targeting all people of Chinese origin who are on international student visas because he's not limiting it to just people who might have ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and if they do have those ties, they don't belong here, especially if they're committing nefarious acts. However, this appears to be much broader and it's terribly misguided and it appears prejudicial and discriminatory. My own father was, came here on an international student visa. And I believe that these people are vital for our economy and for entrepreneurship in this country. And I think this is going to harm America more than help. MARGARET BRENNAN: You said if someone has ties to the Chinese Communist Party they shouldn't be here. Does that mean all the, the students who are children of leaders, for example Xi Jinping's own daughter, shouldn't have been allowed here? REP. KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, if they were engaged in nefarious activities and if they are somehow deeply connected to the CCP, I think that we should be very careful. But in this particular case, they're not only going after people who might fall in that category, but it's anybody who is from China, including Hong Kong by the way, where people are actually persecuted for various freedoms they're trying to exercise, and who come here seeking to exercise those freedoms. So this is a terrible, terribly misguided policy. MARGARET BRENNAN: The Biden administration did conduct heightened vetting, as you know, of Chinese students. Do you think that there is a legitimate argument for expanding this, that certain areas should just be off limits? REP. KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think that you should definitely have heightened vetting, especially in certain critical areas because we know that the CCP tries to steal, for instance, intellectual property or worse. But the way that this is currently structured looks very, very suspicious and you have to remember that the people that are cheering for this policy, what Marco Rubio had called for, is the Chinese Communist Party. Why? Because they want these people back. They want the scientists and the entrepreneurs and the engineers who can come and help their economy. And so we are probably helping them, as well as other countries, more than helping ourselves with this policy. MARGARET BRENNAN: The Defense Secretary is traveling in Asia right now and he said in a defense forum speech that Beijing is quote "concretely and credibly preparing to use military force." He said their military is rehearsing. Take a listen. PETE HEGSETH: Any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. There's no reason to sugar coat it. The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent. MARGARET BRENNAN: He did not say what the consequences would be. Are you encouraged by what appears to be a statement of support for allies? REP. KRISHNAMOORTHI: I am. I think what he's saying is largely correct, but I think the problem is at the same time he says that, either Donald Trump or even him or others say other things that push away our friends, partners and allies in the region and cause confusion. And so we need to be consistent and thoughtful with regard to our statements, and we need to be also very methodical about our actions in trying to curb military aggression by the Chinese Communist Party in the South China Sea and with regard to Taiwan. MARGARET BRENNAN: Since you track U.S. intelligence, I wanted to ask you if you have any insight into what appears to be the swarm of Ukrainian drones that has destroyed 40 Russian military aircraft deep inside Russian territory overnight. Sources are telling our Jennifer Jacobs that the White House wasn't aware that this attack was planned. What can you tell us about the level of US intelligence sharing with Ukraine right now and helping them with their targets? REP. KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't want to get into classified information, but what I can say is that it's a little bit more strained in light of what Donald Trump has said recently. The one thing that I can also say is that Trump was right the other day to say that Putin is crazy in the way that he's going after civilian areas in Ukraine repeatedly, and so the Ukrainians are striking back. At the end of the day, the only way that we can bring these hostilities to an end is by strengthening the hand of the Ukrainians. Trump should, at this point, realize that Putin is playing him and aid the Ukrainians in their battlefield efforts. That's the best way to get to some type of armistice or truce at the negotiating table sooner rather than later. MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Congressman Krishnamoorthi thank you for your insights today.
