1. Investors don't investigate. The SEC investigates, not investors. Investors do due diligence. When I see investors claiming they are "investigating" or bulletin board posters saying "investigation" in relation to investors, my antennae go up. That's a false construction and creates a false light. I realize many regular posters use that construction. It's wrong.
2. The investment from Cognate was unwound. They invested in NWBO by building the capacity to manufacture. It was unwound not because there was a conflict of interest, as is often alleged on this bulletin board, but because there was a commitment NOT to sell those shares, which any supplier would be crazy to make without the ability to ensure they would get paid back in some way, in securities that had a cash value equivalent to the cash they were spending. So they had what is called a Most Favored Nation's clause (MFN) in there, which provided that as NWBO financed in the future, they'd get shares on the same basis to ensuring that the compensation they got for building capacity was for the cash value they were contributing to that capacity. It allowed the company to use shares as cash, a not uncommon thing and, in my opinion, a beneficial supplier arrangement.
When the shorts attacked, and I believe they intentionally pick companies with MFNs in place, because they make companies vulnerable if their share price can be collapsed, the stock price collapsed based upon many false allegations, that put the company into a false light. I look for these attacks because they tend to suggest that someone wants something of great value, very cheaply, and they allow me to invest very cheaply myself. For me, after I do my due diligence, frequently they are a contrary indicator. Not always, but frequently. Once the stock price collapsed, the proportion of ownership of the company that would have to be paid out to compensate for the previous cash investment becomes unsustainable, and in this case it led to the REMEDIATION AGREEMENT with NASDAQ to fix it, but the circumstances also led to a challenging additional problem for them in terms of raising cash, and they chose to delist. In theory, they could have taken on debt, but that would have not likely been possible or on feasibly commercial terms at that moment. They delisted to raise equity, which was forestalled temporarily because of the unwinding of those transactions, and the remediation agreement.
As for "payments" to Cognate, those were funds still owed to the company from the unwinding of their equity payments. They were valid debts owed, and paid, to a separate company with separate investors, which included the fund of investors that LP controls. That she has a portfolio of cos, just like other investors, is not unusual. And the company put into place procedures around conflicts, we all know, and a recent lawsuit was settled on that matter, to the satisfaction of that plaintiff.
These are all the same allegations that keep getting made, over and over again.
Dilution is a real factor in these companies. It's one of the largest risks, it also allows interests to buy in at cheap prices, for institutional investors. The entire company is still not worth all that much. So dilution is a factor of the low value. But low value, even for many of the best companies is part of the risk factors with these microcap biotechs. It's a core risk factor. It's why it is not easy for small investors who get involved and don't learn quite a lot and manage their investments with great care. But it is a consistent and key part of it, especially when they seem to have paradigm-shifting potential and get consistently attacked by shorts and other interests who I believe seek to drive away investors for that very reason, to keep the companies from accumulating capital and becoming a formidable competitor if their technology is good.
Obviously, different investors see things differently.