Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

tradero, the reason is very simple.

Brokers may vote ROUTINE but not NON ROUTINE without client instruction.
However, in the passed #3 was NOT ROUTINE and needed client instruction, forcing 'the family' out of the dark as explained by JB.

But shifting #3 to ROUTINE could only pass SEC because the BNV's counted as present and because if not voted they where a vote AGAINST (a NO). I completely follow JBs reasoning because I think it is correct.

So now brokers will be FORCED to VOTE (not just do NOTHING) for a vote to become a YES and they can do it in absence of instruction of their owners.

PPHM can via the transfer agent know where shares are and who represents them. For non-US you may see names showing up with BIG amounts of shares which are actually representing shares of hundreds of shareholders. Interactive Broker platform users in Europe for instance can be completely hidden from the marker by the platform access providers.

So PPHM can LOBBY the brokers into voting in a certain direction in absence of instructions of the REAL owners. That is PERFECTLY LEGAL.

PPHM, and jbainseky provided a list that clearly shows it up to last year, knows that there are about 100Mil BROKER NON VOTES. So the change that PPHM made now allows them to protect themselves against all kinds of initiatives that would try to boycott the YES vote on # which is of great importance for PPHM.

That is why I think this has been done, not to swing 100Milj shares for a family into anonymity to have their YES vote (because that would imply PPHM works with a HIDDEN party controlling their shares and that WOULD BE ILLEGAL) but to swing 100Mil of shares, or a part of it, in the hands of people that don't seem to care anyway about voting, by negotiating it out with some key brokers that they can easily identify through the transfer agent. And it is a VERY limited number of entities to contact.

If Inter. Brokers would be one of them that would for sure results in MILLIONS of YES votes.

Sorry to resist the family theory, AGAIN I'd love it to be true because I demonstrated in my previous post what a leverage it would mean for all of us.