Mazeppa, SEC complaint was Dianne's idea.
My intention in talking to her was to get her to discuss the issue with NH and Legal and then get back to me. When I say she asked me 10+ times if I was a securities lawyer, I'm not exaggerating. She would say something to the effect of "I don't get what you think the problem is." And when I would try to explain my concern, she kept responding with the securities lawyer question. It was actually very childish. I said multiple times, "Tell me how long you need to get with them and I'll wait to hear from you." And all she would say is, "Are you a securities lawyer?" My plan was to do what you said and go over her head to e-mail Nasrat (his address is not that hard to figure out, Chris Dick's also). It was Dianne who repeatedly refused to even look into the question and told me 3X to file a complaint with SEC. And you may notice that I did this 2 months ago and just now mentioned it. It is very annoying that every time a contrary opinion gets expressed on this board the same posters pop up with "Best call I.R." or "You need to call Dianne." Please. And BTW, Dianne knows my real name, e-mail, phone, and share count.
For the record, I am not against the Epic ELI-200 deal. I think it makes strategic sense in multiple ways. I understand completely why the exact details are not being made public. But the agreement is exactly this: a secret deal with a private company with whom the CEO has a secret fiduciary interest. And that I do have a problem with. While there is a good reason to keep the details of the ELI-200 deal secret, what is the reason to keep secret the details of Nasrat's membership in Epic? Further, I haven't even criticized the Novel deal, other than to point out that it is a perfect example of how shareholders can be adversely effected by secret dealings with private companies who have closed books.
Also, too, I love your posts and look forward to many more. I'm here to stay.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
