InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 26
Posts 1153
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/09/2021

Re: oodtw post# 177251

Friday, 05/19/2023 3:26:02 PM

Friday, May 19, 2023 3:26:02 PM

Post# of 198945
Glad to see this PR, but it's too bad it had to be done. I've posted about this direct license in the past. Reviewing the financials and reading between the lines, it was clear, IMO, that IM*B never fulfilled its obligation to pay the Z Trust for its ITV-1 license and consequently (and presumably), the Trust was free to license directly to the sub (Virogentics) of the new company, ENZC, ie, ENZC's license to ITV-1 did not come from the merger with IM*B, it was a direct license from the Z Trust. (That's JMHO but it seems the PR validates my DD.)

So, that blitz of social media claims about IM*B rights around the time of the S**king A*pha article a couple of years ago (the author of which said in the comment section of the article that he was from Sofia, Bulgaria) as well as some posts here, appeared to me (ie, JMHO) to be either exaggerated, misinformed, misleading or false, (JMHO, do your own DD). Also as I recall, Savov claimed in one of those posts a couple of years ago that he was building (or intended to build) a production facility in Bulgaria. However, that claim also appeared in IM*B (or BG) filings years earlier around the time the license to IM*B was first announced, so his social media claim appeared to be, at the very least, a repeat of an unfulfilled promise from the past. I wonder if that was a promise made to Harry back then. If Savov was sincere, why wasn't it done years earlier? These, and maybe there were more reasons, appear to add up to non-performance, and may be the rationale behind ENZC's cancellation of the IM*B BG (sub)license and the write off of ENZC's 50% ownership of IM*B BG in a prior year, which were mentioned again in this PR.

Think back to where the ENZC pps was when that article and those posts were made and the negative impact they had on the price of ENZC's stock, and thus the value of our investment and the years spent at these levels since then. If CC and Harry are thinking about legal recourse for the company, I would hope they would do so on the behalf of stockholders as well.