CP, in the earliest Ronin communication, there were only three of four Board candidates offered for replacement. That was because, at that timing, PPHM CEO Steve King was not among those targeted by Ronin for replacement. Ronin now offers six of seven, presumably because Ronin did not position to replace Steven King at that time or perhaps, Ronin will come up with a seventh candidate? Of course the latest letter to shareholders from Ronin now vilifies CEO King as among those needing replacement by Ronin candidates.
I observe this is leaving those voting the proxy with a dilemma as to how to address management continuity with the PPHM intellectual property if Ronin candidates "clean sweep" the current PPHM management out? Lias, the new Avid President, is already targeted by Ronin communications for being dismissed when Ronin candidates take control of the Board. If Steve King is dropped from the BOD along with the other three non employee candidates targeted for removal, that leaves no one on the Board with familiarity with that PPHM intellectual property (that Ronin declined to review when they declined to sign a nondisclosure/confidentiality agreement) but for the recent Board appointees.
A new concern I see, after looking into this deeper, is how in their letter to shareholders, Ronin is indicating how PPHM management confidentially mentioned failed plans to sell Avid in context of Ronin voicing with PPHM how Avid should be retained for value development. Yet, Avid value development was the foremost means cited by PPHM in communications with shareholders as a means for enabling PPHM to be self sufficient for operational funding. Plus, at the time these Ronin/White/King communications were occurring, Ronin had, or was beginning to establish an SEC disclosure threshold, greater than 5% ownership position in PPHM. During that period, (February/March) Avid/PPHM were just being notified of delayed Halozyme orders/sales, which did not become known to all investors until PPHM advised that $10 million in expected Avid sales were going to post in their FY 2018, rather than 2017. In turn, this was communicated around timing when PPHM was under pressure influenced by a four million share short position established while PPHM was seeking means to avoid a reverse split to maintain NASDAQ listing requirements. Remarkably, that 4 million share short was covered by March. Where did the four million shares go or how did they play into influencing the pps while Ronin was acquiring a position in PPHM and PPHM was seeking means to restore the pps above the $1 NASDAQ threshold for retained listing? And of course, PPHM had just released promising news of PPHM collaborative research in February.
YIKES!
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
