Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

MD, nobody is saying anything about Chris C of PPHM's IR Dept. honesty, AT ALL!

And let's hope Frustration skips your post or he may throw you some "family emergency" story by IR dating from just behind PPHM's the dose switching incident.

Remember, the reason why PPHM, in Sept 2012, cancelled Credit Swiss and our 2nd ln NSCLC presentation at the conference in Vienna. I am not saying it wasn't true, but honestly saying that I had no doubt at all at the time would be a lie.

Today, and with hindsight, knowing that we were dealing with an act of sabotage and that PPHM must have been suspecting/knowing that from the beginning because they qualified the problem immediately as dose switching at a 3rd party CRO - and certainly now that we had Masten's and Shan's testimony's - it is clear that IR's hands must have been tied.

It was also from that time that we know that an external 3rd party was investigating and hence even the very fact that the dose switching was detected may have been information nobody wanted to disclose in order to have an advantage on those that did it (eg: keep the "she" from moving out of the country for instance ,sponsored by the party on the back).

That doesn't take away that 190K increase of the E&Y invoicing, mostly for auditing, is a lot for the auditing of 4 dividend payments on a not to long list of PPHMP share holders at the transfer agent per each target date. PPHMP is only quoted since FEB 20th see here and therefore is only in the that Fiscal year for FEB (8 days), MAR, APR and for only ONE dividend payment.

“This is tied to the increased number of filings including those tied to the preferred offering and quarterly dividends.”

If PPHM paid that kind of money for that one dividend payment and related listing then I hold my breath for the next invoice that will have 4 and which has also a new offering of extra PPHMP.

And after the corporal's post about clear difference between auditing and consultancy services I wonder that if we would look into the fine print there may not have been some consultancy invoiced as auditing.


No matter what IR's answer is, and I thank CJ for getting that, this still doesn't sit well with me for now. Maybe it will clear up the coming period after some more in depth research :) In all cases it has my attention for now.