Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[CallMeCrazy]

First, you state Leo didn't meet compliance requirements. What specific sec reporting requirement are you referring to?

Secondly, you haven't shown where Leo violated a duty to report. What regulation did he violate? What should he have reported and didn't according to what regulation. You haven't made a case that Leo violated any duty to report.

The important thing is that apparently Leo doesn't think he owes anyone an explanation because he hasn't given one. Apparently, you believe Leo owes you an explanation. Does he owe an explanation or not? Who decides if Leo owes an explanation? The aggrieved party certainly does NOT decide those things.

Until you make a case, essentially, you have an opinion and I have an opposing opinion.

That a CEO of a publicly traded company is obligated to comply with SEC regulations is pretty much laboring the obvious.


Message in reply to:

You said that "As long as Leo is meeting compliance requirements for the full, accurate, and timely reporting of information, IMO, Leo doesn't owe anyone an explanation."

He didn't meet compliance requirements in the example provided so according to you he DOES owe an explanation.

The right thing to do would be to acknowledge that fact, not to slip out the back door. One COULD take their question to the SEC. But the obligation to comply belongs to "Leo" and that was my point.