What's interesting too- is the verbiage above the compensation table isn't even correct as far as I can tell- which makes me wonder who edits/reads the 10-K before they put it out?
PAGE 71, 10-K above the compensation table says, "The following table sets forth, for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, the aggregate compensation awarded to, earned by or paid to our Chief Executive Officer and our two most highly compensated officers (other than the Chief Executive Officer), who were serving as executive officers as of December 31, 2013, or the Named Executive Officers."
BUT, then the table goes on to list the 2012, 2013 compensation? The verbiage above looks old- as it says 2012, 2011? Doesn't make any sense to me?
Oh well, not surprising to me. IMO I think the table and verbiage are mis-matched. Like they updated the table to show the bonuses and new base salaries given in 2013, which as far as I know is fiscal yr 2013, but the verbiage says 2011, 2012? I've found other areas in the 10-K just like this- old language carried over going back clear to the prior 10-K, lines with verbiage that seems to make no sense or reference things incorrectly, etc. It seems like a pretty important document to have errors in it. A typo of a word I can see- but mismatching the header of a table to what's in the table? Oh well- again, that's my opinion and take on that page 71 compensation table. Read it yourself- maybe I'm wrong.
Any way I slice it- it comes up BIG SALARY INCREASES and BONUSES to me- which rubs me wrong when cash is tight and we were just told that thee major trial is probably held up due to "funding". That's my take and mine only.
