You are wrong because of what is known by the SEC as "ROUTINE BUYING" and what is normal is this routine option granting had already been set in stone as a pattern and is allowed under SEC regulations to continue to be legal under some form or merger or partnership.
Now there would be a couple interesting points that would be part of this.
1) Law suits may be used to withhold information 2) Some partnership type agreement also may not become official until lawsuit is over or FDA approval or both. 3) Like you have been complaining about for months before, those prior option grants are the pattern that can be used as officially allowing future option grants in a quiet period so to speak until a lawsuit is over and/or FDA approval comes
So this explains why Peregrine could indeed give/grant themselves free options because of this pattern. I like to follow patterns and have noticed some patterns for myself over the years and these patterns tell an interesting story so to speak. I would think the SEC has an investigative group that pretty much uses patterns and algo's all the time to assist them in their work...
---------------------
Now think of this. If an off shore broker has clients that each own less than 5% of a stock and these clients have been declared legal holders and not considered a "group" so as not to disclose a 13F's if their total group holdings are significantly more than 5%, well would it be considered a pattern if this same group which happens to have it occur once or twice before : ) .... show up AGAIN with multiple, less than 5% holdings of PPHM, but again... as a group may have a significant percentage above that 5% SEC threshold and maybe this pattern just may conclude and be of interest to the SEC and finally force a 13F filing and how easy would it be for the SEC to analyze holdings of such groups ?
Quite easy I say and there is always a first time for everything that one group always thought was normal and legal.
Ok.. I admit it, I'm still not giving up on those possibly holders of 50%+ of the shares of PPHM and it just may be enough to block all their voting rights at a future shareholder meeting on a certain topic.
Lets go Peregrine. Maximize Shareholder Value is simply all we are concerned about. Some want to minimize the price for a complete PPHM buyout... vs others that want to maximize shareholder value, which directly conflicts with one another.
PPHM THE COMPANY WHOSE EXECUTIVES (ZEISBALL, WORSLEY AND LYTLE TO NAME A FEW) CHOSE NOT PURCHASE SHARES AT $1.08 WHEN THEY LEGALLY HAD THE CHANCE TO DO SO.
Thank you, this reveals all. Sell order on Monday.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
