Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
As bad as that looks I'll bet if you used a start date 10 years earlier it would look worse....probably a lot worse.
Not sure why anyone would do that. The entire short interest could be covered on Tuesday for less than $5K.
Ridiculous.
Why would the IPIX CPA CEO have said this in the last 10-K if they already had no reporting obligation?
"We may elect to deregister our common stock under the Exchange Act and suspend our reporting obligations."
There is a process by which reporting obligations can be suspended. IPIX hasn't undergone that process.
Stick to finding patent applications that mention a drug that the filing company doesn't actually use.
Why would you ask this question in a venue that has close to zero activity when you can ask it here, where you have so many willing participants?
"Does anyone have any thoughts on why the 10-Q has yet to be filed?"
Where are you getting this copied and pasted irrelevant nonsense? IPIX still has an obligation to file current reports with the SEC (10-Q,10-k,8-K, etc). You think the CPA CEO filed all this for shits and giggles?
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=cellceutix&match=starts-with&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&myowner=exclude&action=getcompany
It's the circumstances and the outcomes that are provided based on their apparent similarity from a legal standpoint. The parties have little in common, of course.
:o)
An 8-k with a love note for an exhibit.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379006/000110465924024973/0001104659-24-024973-index.htm
There was an item in today's news relating to the repercussions of a civil judgment against a party who can't pay it:
"With the civil fraud verdict, which ____ has vowed to appeal, the amount to be posted or bonded is set by the court. It is typically about 120 to 125 percent of the judgment amount, to account for additional post-judgment interest that accrues during the appeal."
"____ would likely have to sell something, although it wouldn’t necessarily have to be property. He could sell investments or other assets."
"If ____ truly can’t afford the judgments, he would have to declare bankruptcy."
That's a NY case though. Not sure if it applies in Massachusetts.
When you say "flipping n making a couple of bucks here" you MEAN a couple of bucks.
Total dollar volume on the day was $1,309 on 11 trades. The thing's a gold mine.
It's not likely.
An NT-10Q could and should have have been filed and the reason for the 10Q delay provided.
I didn't leave anything out but you should have because this is top of the line BS:
"A very common reason for an NT 10-Q is a merger or acquisition".
That's more Investopedia nonsense (even though you didn't link it) and I'll bet that no one on this board can provide 2-3 examples of it. Very common my ...!
None of it matters, of course, because your beloved CPA CEO Leo didn't file any NT 10-Q at all!
He's an incompetent scofflaw.
Hello 44,
Just a quick note re: Investopedia. They're sloppy and they generally suck. And they provide an example or two of that within the first few paragraphs of the page you linked.
"Understanding SEC Form NT 10-Q
SEC Form NT 10-Q is required to be filed within 45 days following the end of each of a company's first three fiscal quarters. If the 10-Q cannot be filed in a timely manner, the company must file a Form 10-QT with the commission."
1. Form NT 10q is NOT required to be filed within 45 days following the end of each of a company's first three fiscal quarters. It's the Form 10-Q itself that is required to be filed within 45 days following the end of each of a company's first three fiscal quarters. SEC Form NT 10-Q must be filed on the first business day following the due date of the 10-Q if they can't file that form on time. (In IPIX's case that was yesterday).
2. There is no such thing as a "Form 10-QT".
I'm not saying that Investopedia is useless...they occasionally stumble over a fact or two...but one needs to know the answer to a question before they look to Investopedia for it. On second thought I guess that's a pretty decent definition of useless after all.
It's always good to have a backup source anyway.
In an earlier post I linked a legal firm's discussion of the Lateness Notification that included a reference to the way some company's 10-Q lateness notifications were dealt with by the SEC when they failed to provide a fulsome explanation for the delay. Not filing the Form at all won't serve to avoid such sanctions.
A short read if you have the time:
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/blogs/keeping-current-disclosure-and-governance-developments/20230828-recent-sec-enforcement-activity-serves-as-a-reminder-that-rule-12b-25-requires-substantive-disclosures#:~:text=Rule%2012b%2D25%20requires%20a,and%20less)%20than%20just%20that
You have to wonder. This is the first time he hasn't filed a Lateness Notification on time. The SEC electronically monitors such things.
"NNVC would first have to successfully complete the IND approval process in India before running a clinical trial in India: "
I guess they did.
https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=67454&EncHid=&userName=Karveer
No idea where to look for updates....other than NNVC PRs/filings.
One of the latter was filed yesterday:
https://www.sec.gov/ixviewer/ix.html?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1379006/000141057824000048/nnvc-20231231x10q.htm
I did! I took a hike to the IPIX Edgar listing and guess what I didn't find when I got there???
An NT-10Q for the latest quarter!
The last 3 times the Company filed one of those they did so at 7:30 and 8:00AM on the day after the 10Q was due, as required. Makes one wonder whether the CPA CFO will file one at all for the 10Q due yesterday.
Because the 10-Q wasn't filed when it was due yesterday the Company must file FORM 12b-25 NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING today.
"When filing a Form 12b-25, companies must remember the form is not simply a notice of inability to file a report on a timely basis and/or a way to extend the due date, but rather a substantive disclosure document. Therefore, companies should take care to clearly and accurately disclose why they could not file their periodic report within the prescribed time period and whether there are any anticipated, significant changes in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year."
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/blogs/keeping-current-disclosure-and-governance-developments/20230828-recent-sec-enforcement-activity-serves-as-a-reminder-that-rule-12b-25-requires-substantive-disclosures#:~:text=Rule%2012b%2D25%20requires%20a,and%20less)%20than%20just%20that.
Investors should consider the possibility that the explanation for the delay will be a requirement to restate a number of the Company's previous financials in order to account for the rent due based on the recent Court judgment. That would be a major undertaking in time and cost and it may be rendered moot based on the Company's inability to fund the judgment.
This is not likely to be your fathers FORM 12b-25 NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING.
IPIX
Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (PK)
0.00615
-0.00085 (-12.14%)
Volume: 251,796
Day Range: 0.0057 - 0.00625
Last Trade Time: 3:28:02 PM EST
Dollar Volume: $1,488
CEO cash compensation/calendar day: $1,433
I don't expect the departure of the 2 directors to be mentioned....the 8-k covered it.
I was curious about whether you thought that the judgment would be reflected in the accounting.
yes and no.
"I'm surprised we're not being treated to a daily dollar trade volume report"
Perhaps at day's end it will come back based on popular demand. So far today there have been 4 trades worth a grand total of $665.
"Next week could bring more bad news. The 10-Q is due and the appeal of the court judgment must be filed."
A few specifics:
The 10Q is actually due tomorrow. (12/31+45days)
Assuming the 30 day limit applies to an appeal then that filing would be required by Monday.
As a footnote the Judgment says:
"2. Counts 1-4 of IPI's Complaint are DISMISSED."
To clarify I believe that represents ALL of the counts of IPI's Complaint so none remain open.
Any comments about these?
"Do they have to accrue for the judgment or just describe it in the subsequent events section? Will there be any adjustments based on the reality of the going concern issue?"
Banged up. Do they have to accrue for the judgment or just describe it in the subsequent events section? Will there be any adjustments based on the reality of the going concern issue?
Should be an interesting filing when it happens.
Hey fb, you were missed! Did you hear about the judgment against the Company for more money than it has or that it can possibly raise?
When you can take a break from your duties you can read about it here:
Jan 18, 2024, Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law and Order for Judgment
Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc. vs. Cummings Properties, LLC
Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law:
For the foregoing reasons, the court HEREBY DECLARES the following:
1. The operative Lease included the Extension Provision of Lease Extension #1 and the notice requirements of Section 21 of the Lease and was valid and enforceable. IPI failed to provide the requisite notice to Cummings of opting out of the automatic Extension Provision and, as result, the Lease automatically renewed when it failed to pay rent beginning in January 2020; Cummings is entitled to recover liquidated damages in the amount of $810,251.36, minus IPI's $77,600 security deposit, plus eighteen percent per annum interest owing since the date of default, January 17, 2020.
2. Counts 1-4 of IPI's Complaint are DISMISSED.
Judge: Howe, Hon. Janice W
The day of the Judgment was also the day of your last post. Coincidence?
A former regular here has posted this elsewhere:
"There were 2 IPIX board members who resigned on 1/31/24 (Schechter and Spektor). It may not be a coincidence that there are an equal number of BeaMed founders (Shapira and Eshkol)."
But of course IT IS a coincidence. The Bylaws would allow the addition of Shapira and Eshkol and half of Ehrlich's Boca neighbors if he was so inclined:
"The number of directors of the Corporation shall be not less than two (2) nor more than fifteen (15), who need not be stockholders of the Corporation or residents of the State of Nevada and who shall be elected at the annual meeting of stockholders or some adjournment thereof."
Schechter and Spektor (reminds me of Frick and Frack) likely bailed based on something that was NOT a coincidence....a legal judgment for an amount of cash that IPIX doesn't have now and has no reasonable expectation of having any time soon. They had simply seen enough and the judgment was the last straw. Leaving LE to his own devices for the last bunch of years showed their lack of business experience. And they sure didn't have to resign to make room for the BeaMed Boys.
LE never wanted a Board that he didn't control, much less one with a couple sharp operators on it.
Sorry Mo.
As the saying used to go "that and a dime will get you a cup of coffee".
Those patent mentions aren't worth a thing to IPIX, just ask frenchbroad or LE.
"Jan 18, 2024, Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law and Order for Judgment
Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc. vs. Cummings Properties, LLC"
A sharp-eyed olden_grumpini made us aware of that on the morning of the 19th.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173657978
The 18th was also the last day we were graced with a certain party's presence. Coincidence? Capitulation? Or something else?
Yes, that's the sentence in the latest 10-Q that followed the one that I quoted:
"Presently, the Company does not have sufficient financial resources to advance our drug candidates meaningfully or at all. Contingent upon sufficient funding, we anticipate that our efforts would primarily focus on advancement of our drug candidate Brilacidin for decreasing the incidence of severe oral mucositis as a complication of chemoradiation in Oral Mucositis."
It's like saying "We don't have enough money to move B-OM forward but if we did that's what we'd do".
In light of the Company's current cash position and its newfound need to pay old rent AND interest your sentence is akin to spitting into the wind.
A more relevant interesting read:
Management’s Plan of Operation
"Presently, the Company does not have sufficient financial resources to advance our drug candidates meaningfully or at all. Contingent upon sufficient funding, we anticipate that our efforts would primarily focus on advancement of our drug candidate Brilacidin for decreasing the incidence of severe oral mucositis as a complication of chemoradiation in Oral Mucositis."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355250/000147793223008688/ipix_10q.htm
"meaningfully or at all".....that's new language, isn't it?
But in the end Hines lost:
"A Superior Court judge upheld the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause. Hines appealed and the Appeals Court reversed, concluding that the provision was an unenforceable penalty because it didn’t account for the fact that Cummings could (and in fact did) re-let the space and mitigate its damages. Cummings then appealed to the SJC.
In its decision, the SJC cited the basic rule of freedom of contract and deference to those who willingly enter into legally enforceable contracts."
I understand your feelings as expressed here and I know I'm preaching to the choir:
"I am not sure the logic behind the doctrine is more persuasive than the common sense idea that a judgment for you should simply “make you whole” and, in severe cases, penalize the loser with punitive damages."
But that adds some subjectivity that the Court wanted to avoid.
What's a severe case? What's more severe than what happened here other than leaving town on the midnight train? An executed lease should avoid litigation and there should be a penalty for the party that doesn't meet its terms, not just a "making whole".
A landlord should be able to sleep comfortably in the knowledge that the tenant will pay its rent, etc. without the need for any litigation. How should Cummings be compensated for the lost sleep?
Is it okay to be forced to endure a court case in order to secure what is rightfully yours by contract?
IIRC a sublessee for a portion of the space was found and that deal was allowed to get undone by the inaction of IPIX. There was little left for IPIX to do wrong in this situation.
Anyway...the fat lady still hasn't sung. At last tally IPIX doesn't have the judgment money. Now what?
The whys and wherefores behind LE's decision to avoid a decision would be interesting to know. Every day here we're told about the potential of brilacidin, etc. If he had the same level of confidence expressed here he should have been able to make SOME decision, whether that be a smaller space or no space at all, as it ended up. That's all he had to do. He's not very good at decisions, is he?
"Let's say someone signs a 5 year lease with Cummings, defaults, and is evicted. Cummings then leases that property to new tenants while their lawsuit against the evicted tenant goes through the courts."
You seem to feel as if the "defaults" bit of that should be entirely excusable. It's not. All any landlord wants to do is sign a lease that assures them of a risk-free return for property that they own. Note the word "assures".....just as their bank expects their monthly mortgage payment. The tenant wants to be assured that the property will be available to them for the desired period. That's the deal they make.
The logic of the State of Massachusetts (whether people agree with it or not) is worth repeating:
Massachusetts has adopted the “single look” approach because it promotes certainty (tenant is assured access, landlord guaranteed payment), defers to the expectations of the contracting parties (obviously the lease is signed and the terms agreed to as evidenced by the signatures of BOTH parties), and is more likely to lead to the resolution of disputes without litigation ("more likely" should be true...litigation serves little purpose when the outcome is assured, as was the case here)." As you know (thanks for reading the link) the single look approach simply means that any legal issues that arise will de decided based on the terms of the lease as it was written and not influenced by any subsequent events not anticipated in the terms of the lease.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/massachusetts-high-court-reaffirms-single-look-doctrine-evaluating-liquidated
"The Common Wealth of MA's Supreme Judicial Court's "one look" ruling strikes me as a huge opportunity for landlords to take advantage of tenant hardship. It smells somewhat similar to predatory lending."
That's a perfect example of IPIXthink. When things go wrong it's not ALWAYS somebody else's fault. We used to call that "loser talk".
You've said "Not a lawyer" more than once. I'm not a lawyer either, but I've been a commercial tenant. Having an automatic renewal clause in a lease serves to benefit both the landlord and the tenant. It is ALWAYS accompanied by a notice requirement. It was pretty foolish of this CEO to think that he could just ignore it. I'm looking forward to seeing how he deals with the repercussions of that.
Absurd?
"Massachusetts has adopted the “single look” approach because it promotes certainty, defers to the expectations of the contracting parties, and is more likely to lead to the resolution of disputes without litigation."
There's an underlying assumption to the logic of their decision and that's that both parties have the ability to reason. It's not always true.
"According to 8-k Their decisions to resign were not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter related to the Company’s operations, policies or practices. That's a matter of record now."
What are you trying to say? That it's a matter of record that the resigning Directors agreed with the decision to ignore the terms of the lease?
You might be onto something but given the potential repercussions of that admission it wouldn't be a great idea.
You can be reasonably certain that the inclusion of the "not the result of any disagreement" language was promoted by LE.
"The company’s Form 8-K disclosure will need to
be more extensive if a director resigns or refuses
to stand for re-election as a result of a
disagreement with the company, or if the
director is removed for cause. Under these
circumstances, the Form 8-K will also need to
provide a brief description of the disagreement
and disclose the board committee positions that
such director held at the time of the event. If the
director gives the company written
correspondence surrounding the resignation,
refusal or removal, that correspondence would
have to be filed as an exhibit to the Form 8-K."
Did the Directors not resign in writing?
Neither of those gentleman had the kind of business experience that would have allowed them to avoid this mess and they obviously didn't do much to push the science peanut either. This is what you get when you appoint Directors with the sole purpose of pretending to attempt to secure an exchange listing without regard to what they can actually do for shareholders.
"On January 31, 2024, Barry Schechter and Zorik Spektor each resigned from the Board of Directors of Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the “Company”), effective immediately. Their decisions to resign were not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter related to the Company’s operations, policies or practices."
Just boilerplate.
Did they agree "that the lease relating to the Company’s prior principal executive offices terminated in September 2018"? Wonder how they feel about hopping on the LE gravy train now?
Guess they coincidentally decided that they had had enough on the same day?
This won't protect them from any legal actions that might come up. They were appointed in 2015 and the million dollar boner happened in 2018.
Were the Directors and Officers premium payments up to date?
"As for an appeal, I bet those attorneys are not working for free. He probably owes them money for the trial and would owe even more for the appeal."
IPIX could end up not just having to pay their own lawyers if they appeal:
"If you file an appeal when you don’t have a good reason, a court could say your appeal is “frivolous,” and you could end up paying the other side’s legal costs."
What good reason could they offer?
Insolvency is the inability to pay one's bills when due and has little to do with a Company's financial condition other than that.
As of 9/30 the Company had ~$900K in LIQUID assets and $1.5M in Accounts Payable that were NOT due to related parties.
I'm not sure how it matters but the Company meets the definition of insolvent.
That's a case from 1895 in which the verdict against the defendant was overturned but those things don't affect your point.
You quoted the conditions required for an embezzlement charge including "the defendant's dealings with the property constituted a fraudulent conversion or appropriation of it to his/her own use;"
ASSUMING he made the investment in Squalid with the knowledge of the board (and even that may not have been necessary) I believe he was entitled to make that kind of investment*** based on his CEO function. He's allowed to make investments . That leaves the issue of whether there was a "fraudulent conversion or appropriation of it to his/her own use" and while some may believe that there has been I don't think that has been established to be a fact.
He COULD BE in hot water but not based on an illegal act that has yet to be proven.
1. Shareholders have sued executives for similar investments, contending that they were ill-advised and not in their interests. Derivative suits also happen all the time with the Company suing its own executive(s).
2. Although the sea water temperature in Boca Raton is expected to drop to 75.9°F in the next 10 days, by NY and MA standards that is still HOT.
*** FWIW the most recent Annual Report filed w/MA on 11/24/23 says:
7. Briefly describe the business of the corporation:
PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
I don't think that carries much legal weight. He could probably use IPIX cash to buy and sell hot dogs from a cart.
"Incidentally, as I understand it what passes for the Board of Directors of this company now has a legal obligation to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 or Chapter 7."
I don't think so.
"The pre-clinical studies already pretty much established that point"
Which point? Certainly not that NV-387 DOES NOT have significant dose-limiting toxicities.
The Maximum Tolerable Dose in rats was established in pre-clinical trials.
"That wasn't actually the point of the Phase I trails?"
I guess that's my mistake. I thought the attempt to determine the MTD in humans was a basic goal of any Phase 1 trial.
Let's not forget where this issue became an issue.
The Company said that in contrast to its drug "most known antiviral drugs have significant dose-limiting toxicities."
I thought it was reasonable to assume from that statement that NV-387 DOES NOT have significant dose-limiting toxicities and you're telling me that establishing that wasn't a point of the trials.
Then why the comparison statement?
note: my passive aggressive comment was based on your "Have a good afternoon". My apologies if you were being sincere.
Same question to you then:
No press release, Form 8-K or shareholder letter has been issued to provide public notice that the Company has had a Massachusetts Superior Court judgment assessed against it for an amount of cash ("$810,251.36, minus IPI's $77,600 security deposit, plus eighteen percent per annum interest owing since the date of default, January 17, 2020.") well in excess of the cash it reported in its latest filing ($864,000). Obviously payment of that judgment would be impossible under that circumstance.
Is that condition and the failure to provide public notice of it acceptable to you as a shareholder?