InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 29
Posts 9421
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/30/2006

Re: gaboy47 post# 15256

Saturday, 07/26/2008 5:46:12 PM

Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:46:12 PM

Post# of 30387
Gaboy, I have been selling ever since the huge drop that began all this and I don't have that many shares left. At this point, I really don't care what I get for them but I will sell them slowly next week. I have already lost 150k. This has now become a matter of right and wrong.

None of this makes sense unless Dr. Moro is hiding something.

These are the pertinent facts.

1. Abbott is now no longer going to pay any minimum royalties and for some reason, they were allowe to not pay the $50,000 that was due Mar 1, 2008.

2. Abbott is now no longer going to do any work to commercialize RECAF absolutely contrary to what Wittenberg stated over on AGORACOM. Obviously stating that Inverness and Abbott were in the process of commercialization of RECAF is totally incorrect and deceptive by including Abbott. That being totally false, what else was not true that he stated?

3. The press release on March 20 was absolutely negative. Once you understand that they are no longer going to work to commercialize RECAF and no longer going to pay minimum royalties, what ever else is stated in that "agreement in principle" is immaterial. The product is essentially returned. Abbott is through with it.

4. The press release on March 20 was rushed to publication. This is the big question. Why was Dr. Moro in such a hurry to announce negative news that he put information on an "agreement in principle" in a press release to the public? Why the hurry? No company publishes "agreements in principle" when they end royalties and stop work on a product just for the sake of publishing bad news.

5. There had to be a timeline involved to rush that to publication. Was the 90 day notice of return expiring? Was it pressing against the 4 business days required by the SEC to notify of a material change?

6. I don't know for sure but he is definitely hiding something and IMO, the only devastating thing he could have been hiding was a 90 day notice of return from Abbott. A material event that certainly is not nullified by an "agreement in priciple" that has not even been signed.

I am obviously not the only one who has figured this out. Ted knew it as well as Kag and others. The seller who drove the stock to 30 cents also knew but he just kept quiet about it.
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.