1) Don't remember the context of that comment by NP. A black mark from a regulatory agency generally involves a procedural issue. Yes- common. Some are able to be corrected, some are limited, some deal-breakers, some not. A regulator is not able to use "I don't like the way you said that" or a relationship as a basis for action and (myself and every other one I have ever known) would certainly not want to be accused of anything near that. Plus- there are overwhelming numbers of regs that must be followed by regulators as well as the regulated.

Again, am simply stating that- IMO- the 5% letter showed a lack of understanding of the process by adding the part about relationships with regulatory agencies.

2) Will admit I am confused on this comment- while also making it clear I am a inconsequential investor that is undecided/ researching. What would be the hurdle in clarifying being held to a higher standard/limits of enrichment? -Especially since that is one of the core criticisms of the current board?

And yep- the FDA letter freaks me out.


_______________

Posted On: 07/02/2021 12:04:09 AM

Posted By: swordman
Re: CGC #94965
"2 things were striking"

#1--you state letter insinuates--On the record we heard NP say"we did not want ANOTHER black mark from the FDA"
So being from govt public health--what did that mean?? when questioned about the EUA (after saying CYDY filed then saying we asked) his response was "another black mark" ?? Do you know?? Does that mean 1 black mark or so many black marks, we dont want another??

#2--"I would be all ears to hear the ways they will limit lining their pockets" well I guess then some shareholder like you or NP et al can sue for "unjust enrichment" and claw back illegal shares. Maybe you believe unjust enrichment lawsuits to be common. IT IS NOT

Just like the public rebuke letter from FDA--you might believe that is everyday practice--IT IS NOT


Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=617...z6zRF4Kpjr