How about this. Let's assume that the raising of $2M was done according the existing agreement. I am going to put some assumptions below.
1. IPIX needed around $2M for an unanticipated payment (either for unanticipated purpose or changed schedule of payment(s)). I am not going to speculate for what the money was needed. Only this: the monies were needed on tight timetable.
2. Aspire was/is able to sell no more than 200,000 shares per day without bringing the share price seriously down. I personally think that 200,000 is too high number for stable share price.
3. Assuming $ 0.40 average share price it would have taken the sale of 5 million shares over 25 business days to generate 2M$. Not good even for paying net30 bill in time. And this assuming that Aspire would have been able to to pull off over month long sale without going below $0.25 share price, which is doubtful.
What would be a solution that would still fall under the existing agreement?
I think this would:
Aspire agrees to forward IPIX $2M against the sale of 8 million shares. Shares to amount ratio is based on the bottom share price at which Aspire is obliged to provide purchase services in the current agreement. The actual 'purchase order' can be worded so that Aspire is to sell 8 million shares total at share price 'conserving' pace and Aspire will pay IPIX the proceedings above $2M forward payment as the sale of shares progresses. The numbers in the latest 10 Q would represent the factual situation as of early May 2018: IPIX had received $2M against the ongoing sale of 8 million shares.
I see nothing in the current agreement that would prevent this arrangement. Maybe others are smarter and do. Furthermore, if the arrangement complies with the current agreement (as I think it does) it does not require any new SEC filings before the coming quarterly report.
Also this: I think any honest and objective person should consider the above possibility as viable as any other unless somebody is able to prove that the above possibility is in violation of the existing agreement. For the hasty ones: saying that it is in violation does not count - needs a proof like a quote from the agreement that specifies how the payments to IPIX are to be made. So, before that proof shows up - good luck with your aspirations of taking IPIX to court.
