Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[nuke661]

CP,

Again, I disagree with your support of management.

You state:

They are reviewing the complete chain! That is why it takes time. They learned there lesson and are not only investigating the discrepancies but now check EVERYTHING (all data) of this trial, EVEN the data from BEFORE the patient treatment group assignments!

and

Now say again they don't deserve their options! This is the ONLY PROFESSIONAL THING TO DO! Review it ALL no matter what to AVOID further 3rd party surprises! Good Peregrine!

I have stated in previous posts regarding management's areas of responsibility and a possible sources of failure associated with the 3rd party screw up. I stated previously that management had the responsibility to inspect and vet all the contracted vendors' processes (procedures, processes and personnel experience) prior to entrusting them with the most critical trial in the company's history. I pointed out that it is always prudent to perform audits of these vendors PRIOR to issuing contracts. In fact it MAY have been a legal requirement for them to do so; whether a legal requirement or not I believe no reasonable experienced business person should be contesting that it was a prudent thing. I work in a heavily regulated industry that requires these type of audits be done before contracting crucial services from vendors. Its a heavily regulated industry and I would expect no difference from the drug industry.

Performing prudently is what I consider minimum expected performance when hired and if prudent actions were not taken then certainly IMO bonuses certainly are not deserved. Do I know if Peregrine performed these audits - assigning experienced and knowledgeable personnel to do so - prior to issuing the contracts? NO I don't and neither does anyone else on this board that is not privy to inside info.

Neither do I intend to give them the benefit of the doubt due to the severe impact on the company, its credibility and the value of my shares due to this 3rd party screw up that MAY have been prevented IF management performed prudently. I will only vote for awards when it is clear to me that they acted prudently and professionally.

For you to state that because management has "learned their lesson" and is performing what I am sure are legally mandated actions FORCED upon them after a major process screw by a 3rd party vendor, that has cost the company and we shareholders very dearly and which very well may have been prevented if appropriate audits were performed by knowledgeable and experienced auditors (again management's area of responsibility to see that it occurred), is not justification that they are professional and deserving of bonuses. Your statements lead me to believe that you are blindly supporting this management team with no depth of thought given towards what their roles and responsibilities were in this trial fiasco.

"Learning their lesson" implies to me they weren't doing what they should have been doing to begin with and just reinforces the fact they shouldn't be given bonuses.

Of course all this is said with respect to your opinions and best of luck with your investment if you are an investor in Peregrine.