(Total Views: 486)
Posted On: 01/28/2022 12:43:33 PM
Post# of 154977
Thanks for pulling this out.
One very important piece of information we don't have is whether NP was terminated by the board WITH cause, or WITHOUT cause.
If without cause, I agree with the optimists thinking it is likely for a BP partner or financing partner wanting to bring in their own people.
If for cause, I suspect it may have been something turned up in the Amarex case (the "submit the BLA anyways even if incomplete" e-mail sure could be incriminating) or possibly something turned up by SEC/DOJ, if NP statements really were under investigation (or not).
I believe Pestell was terminated with cause, I recall concluding (probably wrongly) before that it may have been related to him not giving enough time to CEO role with all his other interests.
Was Nader's termination for cause or not? I suppose we may only find out later in subsequent filings, or if NP sues like Pestell did for wrongful termination (I believe that is right about Pestell, but not sure of the details of his suit).
One very important piece of information we don't have is whether NP was terminated by the board WITH cause, or WITHOUT cause.
If without cause, I agree with the optimists thinking it is likely for a BP partner or financing partner wanting to bring in their own people.
If for cause, I suspect it may have been something turned up in the Amarex case (the "submit the BLA anyways even if incomplete" e-mail sure could be incriminating) or possibly something turned up by SEC/DOJ, if NP statements really were under investigation (or not).
I believe Pestell was terminated with cause, I recall concluding (probably wrongly) before that it may have been related to him not giving enough time to CEO role with all his other interests.
Was Nader's termination for cause or not? I suppose we may only find out later in subsequent filings, or if NP sues like Pestell did for wrongful termination (I believe that is right about Pestell, but not sure of the details of his suit).
(1)
(0)
