Corporal,
Don't you think that Halozyme and other Avid sales projections being delayed translated to PPHM earnings prospects being much diminished, which in turn, held back the pps recovery that PPHM suggested would occur to meet NASDAQ listing requirements? All of this was in the purview of the auditor who released the going concern statement that showed up in the recent Q reporting. Whatever the case, the assignment of accountability for the going concern as a flaw in PPHM management was what I was responding to.
I do find it funny that some might think I would weigh into my formula for my investment that the going concern statement gives cause to support a Ronin agenda. Maybe some of those 1000 retail investors like myself might be influenced by that (I can't write for them), but I for one, would not expect to find that either the current BOD or Ronin had interaction with Halozyme that gave cause for Halozyme's delayed Avid orders.
If Ronin wants to convince me that they should change PPHM's business plan, they need to demonstrate something more substantive than finding flaws with PPHM BOD compensation. Many might be delighted to work on PPHM's Board for less than a half million in annual compensation, but that doesn't mean that their business plans are better, either.
Ronin needs to deliver some meaningful cause to get my support beyond sending me back to painful memories of CSM mischief, Dr. Epstein China mischief (Ronin may not even know about that, LOL), litigation settlements brought by those who speculated with options and short sales before the CSM news or Phase 3 trial halt were announced or whatever ghosts from the past get flagged. Ronin needs to show me how they will do better for me if I give them my support, going forward.
Recall, I started posting today with giving reference to that Washington Post article that explained how the SEC was cracking down on parties who were taking short positions, then maligning the companies they shorted on anonymous message boards. My sense is still that there are other, unidentified parties weighing in on PPHM trading beyond those who disclosed their 5% positions.
I don't really expect Ronin to carry pps support duty just because they established a > 5% position, nor did I expect that from Dart when their position was disclosed. I do expect Ronin to demonstrate to me why I should align with their interests to change the BOD and insert their business plan over current management's.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
