"Another of the innuendo's that has been tossed about is that the asking price for the plant IF NNVC buys it is that they will somehow 'overpay' Dr. Diawn and line his pockets more - at the expense of NNVC shareholders.
Since it appears from the 10Q and other filings that there is an auditor figuring out the cost before NNVC was to buy it back - this concern also appears to be trumped up and trivial. NNVC will not 'pay' more for the plant than it cost to build & refurbish as long as that auditor does its job."
"Trumped up and trivial"?
Who could imagine that anything might go wrong with THAT process?
There's no mention in the latest 10-Q of any independent audit of the costs:
"We evaluated the lease versus purchase option regarding this facility. We commissioned an independent consultant report to help us with this decision. Based on this report, the Board of Directors has authorized the purchase of this facility. As such, the Company has not entered into a lease of the building as of the date of this report. Inno-Haven, LLC has agreed to sale of the building to the Company for the payment by the Company of all of Inno-Havens costs and expenses in acquiring and constructing the facility. The total costs of Inno-Haven are being determined in order to effect this purchase."
The building itself was purchased by InnoHaven in September of 2011. In the 3 years since the purchase price they paid for it hasn't been divulged, has it? Didn't the company assist in its financing? I know that there is a $1,000,000 Deposit on the balance sheet...is that not related? If so, wouldn't that entitle the shareholders of NNVC to be clued in to the cost of the asset that it helped to acquire? Of course, prior to the decision made by the company board to buy versus lease the building it may have been argued (badly argued) that it was being bought by a private party who was entitled to keep that information private....even in the face of the companies provision of collateral for the purpose. Yet now that the decision has been made to buy the building from InnoHaven the price paid for the building STILL remains an unknown.
How much was this project supposed to cost? I saw no comments on the board to the following items in the 10-K.:
Under Note 6 - Property and Equipment (as of June 30, 2014):
GMP Facility........$ 3,099,780
Lab Equipment.......3,605,514
Note that as of 6/30/13 these numbers were $397,407 and $1,076,793 respectively.
SECURITY DEPOSIT....$1,000,000
Other than in the heading, the phrase "Fixed Assets" appears in the following two sentences only (dated June 30, 2014):
During the reporting period, InnoHaven, LLC, acquired fixed assets on behalf of the Company from third party vendors behalf of the Company at 1 Controls Drive, Shelton, Ct......$4,500,000
During the reporting Period, Thera Cour Pharma, Inc acquired fixed assets on behalf of the Company from third party vendors......$528,720
I guess, but cannot be certain, that that means that those two entities arranged for the company to acquire whatever fixed assets are referred to and the company itself paid for them.,,,either reimbursing the parties named or paying the vendors directly. There is no liability on the balance sheet to indicate that the entities "acquired fixed assets on behalf of the Company from third party vendors" and are still owed for them. It's not clear from the statements that such fixed assets might not be part of the "cost to build & refurbish" that will eventually be part of the purchase price....or whether they are part of the Property and Equipment assets provided earlier.
In sum, investors have NO IDEA what they will be paying for the building. None.
Of course some might simply feel that "it is what it is", but given that you have judiciously included in your concerns the issue of timing ("When is the Shelton plant expected to come online?") I expect that you do not share an "it is what it is" attitude when it comes to its cost.
Please reconsider your view that the concerns about cost are trumped up and trivial. The costs are plainly not trivial (actually "costs" and "plainly" are words that don't belong in the same sentence regarding this project) and I suggest that you consider the following before you use the phrase "trumped up" again to describe any concerns that anyone might have. These statements can be ignored as just the usual boilerplate or you can acknowledge that they fit the current issue perfectly and justify more careful consideration than "trumped up and trivial" suggests:
"Our executive officers or directors or their affiliates have interests in entities that provide products or services to us."
"The terms of transactions with the other entity may not be subject to arm’s length negotiations and therefore may be on terms less favorable to us than those that could be procured through arm’s length negotiations."
"I ated the purple berries"
