Manibiotech:
As I have written in my earlier post, I don't have all the facts, however, from what facts I do know, LP's warrant extension deal looks very much like unjust enrichment.
In exchange for a restriction not to exercise her warrants for 6 months(until November 1, 2020), her warrants due to expire on May 2, 2020, at least about 30 million, have been extended for 2 and1/2 years from that date for a total of 3 years.
Instead of having to buy stock from NWBO for cash in connection with NWBO's funding requirements(April 2, 2020 capital raise) and getting her warrants extended, just like other accredited investors including me, her consideration was merely a restriction in exercising warrants for a 6 month term. Essentially, this consideration has highly questionable value if any and certainly none at present. The deals other accredited investors were offered required cash payments in connection with extension providing immediate and ascertainable value to the company. LP's deal did not and indeed may not provide any value at all thereafter. As CEO, LP, to some important extent, can control the timing of events during this period such that exercise of her warrants is not an issue and she does not " miss out " For example, TLD is not announced prior to November 1, 2020 and/or there are a series of dilutive fundings that effectively place a lid upon any share price appreciation. Even if there is appreciation due to TLD release during this restrictive period, we have no idea whether it will be significant due to the strength of "dark forces" and the significance of the announced results. In any event, LP's deal essentially gives her three years to realize value especially due to RA approvals and initial commercialization results. It is clear that whatever value this restriction has, it is certainly not commensurate with the value she received in extending her warrants.
Here is some perspective to understand just how good her deal was in comparison to some other accredited investors' deals. For approximately every $50K invested, 300K shares would be purchased from the company with about 300K warrants extended for 1 year with a reduction of $0.08 in the exercise price. I don't believe that LP's deal involved a reduction in the exercise price but instead of a one year extension, she received three years or 3x what other investors obtained. You can do the math, but even if LP's deal were evaluated at parity with other investor deals, her cash contribution would have been in the neighborhood of at least $5 million which is the equivalent of a funding that could last the company several months without having to go to the " friendly" capital well. Hence, this LP extension deal will not only cost shareholders longer term but also shorter
term dilution as well.
I think LP, the BOD, the General Counsel and the CFO have some 'splaining to do. This looks like a prima fancies unjust enrichment case where these individuals abused their fiduciary duties to make sure that the corporate "person" ( and derivatively shareholders)'received fair value in exchange.
If it looks, quacks and walks like a duck, is it a Linda? JMHO.
