Posted On: 12/17/2013 10:36:39 PM
Post# of 72445
BJ, no argument from me about seating an independent board, as I've emphasized the importance of this oversight all along. Ehrlich has said this will happen when the SP is sustained above $2
To all others: let's be direct and clear, shall we? Does anyone know whether Innovative Medical was created to protect intellectual property or legally shelter taxes, or for some other reason? Was nanoantibiotics created for similar reasons as well? In the absence of such knowledge, speculation is all we have.
It is not difficult for me to believe that an extensive cache of IP would be (and should be) protected via different legal entities, and with family members being the most trusted, they would be listed as the controlling names (nanoantibiotics).
One could make a similar "control" argument about the preponderance of ctix shares owned by Ehrlich and Menon (at times referred to as a double-edged sword): their controlling interest prevents a premature or hostile takeover by big pharma, but also reduces liquidity and perhaps the interest of institutional investors, as there is no independent oversight.
Looking forward to the INDA for P, and the mid-January JPM conference for a comprehensive update on K. These issues and the commencement of the B trial overshadow the above, unless there is factual information to the contrary.
To all others: let's be direct and clear, shall we? Does anyone know whether Innovative Medical was created to protect intellectual property or legally shelter taxes, or for some other reason? Was nanoantibiotics created for similar reasons as well? In the absence of such knowledge, speculation is all we have.
It is not difficult for me to believe that an extensive cache of IP would be (and should be) protected via different legal entities, and with family members being the most trusted, they would be listed as the controlling names (nanoantibiotics).
One could make a similar "control" argument about the preponderance of ctix shares owned by Ehrlich and Menon (at times referred to as a double-edged sword): their controlling interest prevents a premature or hostile takeover by big pharma, but also reduces liquidity and perhaps the interest of institutional investors, as there is no independent oversight.
Looking forward to the INDA for P, and the mid-January JPM conference for a comprehensive update on K. These issues and the commencement of the B trial overshadow the above, unless there is factual information to the contrary.
(0)
(0)
