Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[biopharm]

Golfho, in reading the Proxy you will find that all the noise CREATED involving shelf shares being proportionate to the rest in a RS is accounted for in the proxy, so a letter to PPHM, SEC, etc......is not necessary!

Just another distraction created on this message board.

IMO

What line items are you referring to pw ?

Where does it say in the proxy that IF... IF and a big IF the BOD decide it would be needed, that all shares would be split proportionately ??

Krakonos brought this up way back..
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119945096

Now, I have said it before in a post and believe that we must make Peregrine/SEC/Nasdaq aware...

1) Authorized shares should be split and why vote for a split if this is not officially made clear

2) BOD stock options should be split

3) Any royalty payments to UT or others that were already filed and SEC sealed/classified at this time ==> should be split as well.

For example: In some scenario that UTSWM or someone else is promised future "authorized shares" once certain goals/revenue etc is met so if UTSWM or someone was guaraneteed 7,000 shares if some medical device brings in $50M in profit the 1st year.... well, if a RS happens and the authorized shares are not split then some party would be handed out 7,000 shares

In this clause, those 7,000 shares would become payable at 1,000 shares and you all get the point here. It may seem not needed but when was the last time any of you read some legal blurp that just something was not thought of..... LIKE FARGO LAWSUIT ! so yes, every clause needs to be pointed out here

Now CP disagreed with me, that you can't give "authorized" shares away but I would have to disagree and worst case CP could be right but I'd rather close all loopholes, JUST IN CASE... because future revenue can be tied to royalty payments and authorized shares have been AUTHORIZED already, but not at POST REVERSE SPLIT prices...

Any royalty clause would/should be just in percentages of overall revenue or profit..etc but I guess some clause could have a loophole like a certain amount of authorized shares... correct? why not ??!!

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124477436