Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[loanranger]

I may not deserve your gratitude if this well known attorney is right. You can start at 2:45 if you're in a hurry:

She says that a 13G filer needs to file a 13G/A Amendment within 10 days "if there's a change in ownership (increase or decrease) of 5% or more".

(In the Aruda example I gave they didn't seem to do that.)

Going deeper into the weeds we see this in the actual law:
"Any person relying on § 240.13d-1(b) that has filed its initial Schedule 13G (§ 240.13d-102) pursuant to that paragraph shall, in addition to filing any amendments pursuant to § 240.13d-2(b), file an amendment on Schedule 13G (§ 240.13d-102) within 10 days after the end of the first month in which the person's direct or indirect beneficial ownership, computed as of the last day of the month, exceeds 10 percent of the class of equity securities. Thereafter, that person shall, in addition to filing any amendments pursuant to § 240.13d-2(b), file an amendment on Schedule 13G (§ 240.13d-102) within 10 days after the end of the first month in which the person's direct or indirect beneficial ownership, computed as of the last day of the month, increases or decreases by more than five percent of the class of equity securities. Once an amendment has been filed reflecting beneficial ownership of five percent or less of the class of securities, no additional filings are required by this paragraph (c).


So the law is saying that Kips would have to issue a 13G/A if their holding went up or down by 5% of IPIX's outstanding (or 19-20M shares) while Attorney Anthony seems to be saying that a 13G/A would have to be filed if their holding itself went up or down 5% (1M shares or so).


At this point all I'm sure of is that, unless Kips files a 13G/A saying that their holding has dropped below 5% of the IPIX outstanding (like Leviston did), they would have to file one on 2/14/22 unless there was no change in their holding (which seems unlikely).

And there's one more thing I'm sure of....no filing is required if the change in ownership percentage is triggered solely by a change in the shares outstanding of the issuer.


To me the real question is whether or not Kips Bay is a brand new owner whose ownership is based on the new Preferred Agreement or is somehow one of the original MFO/Leviston investors who has increased their holding. I think it's the former, but it's just not clear. If there's enough detail regarding the new Preferred shares and warrants in the 10-Q we MIGHT be able to figure it out.




Sorry about this. I know it's not very helpful.