I find this interesting, AF knows who did the financing, amazing his connections. I would think that he would not lie as he normally does since it will be verified shortly but notice he goes only so far to say it wasn't Woodford because that would be hugely positive and then he sticks to his negative attack by putting his usual negative spin on what he is reporting. To me that means it is still positive.
I also find the following interesting, today I called the broker's office to ask if they have ever done business with Woodford, they said they have dealt with three of his funds. So interesting that they have and multiple times. So maybe we should take what AF eagerly announces with a grain of salt and not discount what others have predicted here. Knowing AF I got to believe his is being honest in it not being Woodford so he gains credibility and thus making his spin even more credible. After all he knows that the facts will emerge forthwith so he can't be that stupid to lose whatever credibility he believes he has left.
And lastly notice he said it was an individual, that is telling in and of itself because if it was good enough for Woodford and that would be deemed positive to stockholders why wouldn't another named individual be as positive, it jus means another large investor felt it was the right time and a great price. The fact that AF adds his negative spin that the investor is going to dump the shares asap is just doing what he does best. Why wouldn't Woodford dump it immediately if he did the financing, and I will answer that because it would be profitable or prudent and thus the unnamed financier wouldn't either. Any unnamed financier would be motivated by the opportunity if he was familiar with the company at this point in time knowing whatever he knows, and he has to know something ignorer to drop $5M trust me on that.
