The argument that Nader stabilized the company may be true, but the complete narrative cited, references NP on NP, with no independent confirmation. It is spectacular to have a case attempted to be built in support of NP. Falls way short on independent verification of alleged facts( according the the known liar), so we have that. Unfortunately, all veracity of the case is lost when relying on the “ends justifies the means “ argument in an attempt to absolve him from the multitude of subsequent lies and failures. Moreover, the proffered case for NP cannot stand by any ethical barometer.
So, IF NP saved the company from BK and maybe he did, the argument is that self dealing, lies and other failures are OK? What about he hit his competency in raising money and just happens to be a failure in all matters related to Pharma execution. The case for that argument is more solid than “ he should be allowed to run amok” , because he put financing in place. Great be an advisor. Get performance shares for new money, but let an experienced pharma Executive take over leadership who can execute in the Pharma space. There is ambiguity with your case, but there is no ambiguity with all the on the record lies and failures. He may be able to raise money, but he sure cannot find the truth or run a pharma company.
The “ he saved CYDY from bankruptcy only to BK the company himself” is not a viable argument… nice attempt.
Market Data 
Markets 
