Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[CallMeCrazy]

IMO, if not disclosing the amount of the initial payment is about limiting "negotiating adversary (ies) ability to gauge IPIX's true financial position", then, IMO, the share increase is about limiting negotiating adversary (ies) ability to gauge IPIX's true financial capabilities.


The stated reason for the share increase:

Why is the Company seeking to increase the Company’s authorized capitalization?

" and is contemplating various alternatives to raise capital, including a potential private placement of shares of common stock or securities convertible into shares of common stock. In addition, we may issue shares to acquire other companies or assets or engage in business combination transactions. Currently, we have no specific plans, arrangements or understandings, whether written or oral, with respect to the increase in shares available for issuance as a result of the Increased Capitalization Charter Amendment.

(Highlight added)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355250/000147793219004481/ipix_pre14a.htm

As the boldface clearly shows, Leo is formally stating that he has "no specific plans" to use this increase in shares. This is an anticipatory move as evidenced by the statement: "The Board believes that the Company will need to raise additional capital in order to implement its business plan..."

If Leo receives shareholder approval to increase the shares by 300M, negotiating adversaries will immediately know that IPIX's financially capabilities are greatly increased and this will affect IPIX's bargaining position. No matter whether Leo previously threatened to go it alone or not, negotiating adversaries will know that Leo has "go-it-alone" as a credible option.

Leo is negotiating with much bigger companies over some very valuable IPIX assets. We are not privy to whom Leo is negotiating, what drugs or indications are being discussed or what terms have been advanced and accepted or rejected by either side. Leo IMO, is trying not to give away the store and is working to maximize the value of our pipeline and the weapons he is using is the creation of competition for our drugs and his bargaining strategy.

It has been said that a wise person is a person who knows when they're ignorant. As shareholders and given all that we don't know: Why would we want to hinder Leo's bargaining strategy and provide him with one less option, by voting no? I choose to replace my ignorance about these negotiations with confidence in Leo and his ability to effectively negotiate from a weaker position in a way that enriches IPIX shareholders. To vote no is to side with our negotiating adversaries. I'm voting yes. Hope you will too.

Message in reply to:
IMO, IPIX was wise to omit the initial payment amount because they are probably still in negotiations with other pharma (s) and this will limit their negotiating adversary (ies) ability to gauge IPIX's true financial position.
.
Obviously, negotiating from a position of financial strength is preferable to negotiating from a position of financial weakness. Regarding IPIX's financial health, "sometimes you have to fake it till you make it", or at the least create uncertainty in the minds of negotiating adversaries.

Smart move, Leo!


.