Replies to post #235830 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[north40000]

RRdog, you continue to provide persuasive alternatives and reasons to vote "no" to #3. As I said initially when the proposal was 1st voiced by PPHM, we will withhold our votes 'til the last possible minute to see what other news may come to light to mitigate the disaster you outline. We have a lot of votes, along with others.

[cheynew]

Giving this team with demonstrated poor financial judgement access to another 175 million shares is a disaster waiting to happen. Thanks for posting your persuasive arguments against #3.

[BKT]

RRog,

Very well stated and broken down for the average layman. Apparently there are a number of ways to raise cash, I wonder if management has actually considered them all. I believe that most of us are concerned about what management could do with these shares if this is approved now. They would have nothing to keep them in check, not to mention how Wall Street would take a 175 million share approval. If we are unhappy about 1.10, what happens if 175 million are approved and no news for a while, could get ugly, real ugly.

You have also hit on a touchy subject, which is of course how management continues to have no tact when it comes to the actual owners of this company ( yes that would be us retails). To ask for 175 million shares, and to change the classification of the vote to "non routine" to "routine" without an explanation or letter to shareholders is beyond comprehension, not to mention there is not even a full agreement with the board. This further emphasizes this BOD's mindset that they can do what they want, when they want, and how they want without answering or being accountable to anyone. There are no checks and balances here.

As usual another PPHM shareholder in the dark.

[geocappy1]

Agreed! The SHs have been restricted on everything including having any real vote on the BOD. They have made it impossible for SHs to have any say so.

IMO this is an opportunity to say you don't need carte blanch on 175M shares to sell as you want at a $1.12 a share. Either put some restrictions on the share or do a different kind of financing. It is too easy when they keep getting new options to sell shares cheap.

This is our one time to exercise some control.

[Protector]

RRDog, in general i see the solutions you are mentioning in 3 sections.

1) Solutions that depend on 3rd parties and are therefore easily written but maybe not that easily achieved by PPHM. And example of those

Examples:
- Raise non dilutive capital through a milestone "regional" deal.
- Bring in an overall partner for "milestone" deal.

I am all for if PPHM can achieve this, it fits the many small partnerships/collaborations vs the large suffocating partnership, and i would thereof applaud such solution. I am sure PPHM is working on such deals and the last Quarterly/CC language reflects, or at least to me reflected, such activities to be either ongoing or at least envisaged.

2) Stressing solutions that will direct PPHM/Avid into some MANDATORY obligation within a time-frame or towards datelines.

Examples:
- Leverage Avid for 50-100mm.
- Do a sale/leaseback of Avid

Now those are the LAST things they need. With Bavi being either a wanted or much feared substance (from AbbVie pre-deal to dose switching with intend EVEN recognized by PPHM) i think the LAST thing PPHM needs are VULNERABILITIES. We have seen in Sept 2012 how bankers react. Swift, without any consideration and PREMATURE. In the end the 2nd ln NSCLC did get approved by the FDA and yet they retracted the loan which could have simply torpedoed PPHM and didn't even wait for a couple of weeks to find out more. If Avid due to, say, some new crisis would have a few bad quarters and the lease paying become difficult what then. If someone wants to sabotage a clinical trial what is it to offer HALO some top notch production at broken prices against which Avid cannot compete (because they have been intentionally brought down to steel the revenue away from Avid).

So I wouldn't go for ANY vulnerabilities until we have OWN continuous income from say selling Bavi.

3) Dangerous solutions when driving blind. We don't see all the cards. I'd love to see them and i am sure you and all others on this board too. I think we both understand by now that we are not going to see them more then really needed. In that context a number of the solutions are dangerous because we have no idea what plans we may be crossing.

- "Defer" the authorization until
- "Defer" prop #3 until

It is mainly for that reason that i, while after your previous post being interested in the bypass of a 'no' over a re-vote to a 'yes' with a signal function and the hopes of more explanation from BoD for a second vote, did in the end migrate to a yes. Now, believe me after considering and reconsidering and doubting and re-doubting and etc.

I just thought that this, so short to the end line, was no time for games, signal sending, etc. Furthermore i am convinced that if these 175Mil shares are not shelved with a clear up-front plan, in which case that is fine for me because the plan will be one benefiting PPHM, then they are for sure not going to be dumbed just like that. PPHM has always used years to consume its shelf via the ATM and used it on an as needed basis with TWO exceptions. One was to save the company in 2012 (i think everyone on here must be glad we had that shelf at that time or our shares would have a 10 digit value now starting with 0.000.... The other was the salvaging operation of 2nd ln NSCLC and it got us a PIII but we should have got it without extra funding. So that was the non-leveraged part usage of the ATM.

So actually i do no longer worry, i may have been influence a little by the many doom scenarios related to the 175Mil shares because i saw that some COULD be executed which did of course not mean they WOULD and i failed to give that sufficient weight.

So that leaves

Sell preferred when possible as PPHM gets more value for equity. (If necessary have K and L Gates paper up a series F preferred without the worst case 29:1 anti-dilutive clause that devours cap space)

If that can cut it fine with me. Only I think if that were the solution PPHM, who actually surprised all of us with this creative funding via PPHMP, would already have implemented it.

As for:

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not thank the board for the pleasant comments on my last article. I don't post often on the board because it is easy to be misinterpreted, but whichever way you vote, I appreciate that so many of you gave my remarks a fair hearing.

Your argument was strong and appealing. Not many people can make me doubt and believe me your article kept me jumping like a cat from wall A to wall B not knowing which one to climb on.

[DrRocker]

Your reasoning was persuasive on both occasions. Like many, I will hold my vote for another week or two in hopes that management will deem it worthwhile to put out a shareholder letter justifying both the amount of shares being asked for and the change from non-routine to routine which is as big of an issue for me as the number of shares. Absent that my vote is a no. Not holding my breath on that shareholder letter as I think it would have already been forthcoming if the company felt they needed our votes.

[stoneroad]

Voting NO tomorrow.

[biopharm]

great post RRdog and I'm torn between the yes or a no vote. At this time, I have to agree that if Peregrine Pharmaceuticals has indeed something to say that will help the vote they must say so and fast it seems.

One question that seemed to have passed is the part about the BOD's not being in complete agreement and mostly all have assumed that only 1 was not in agreement with the other 3.

I would think that it could be 2 vs 2 ? unless I missed something..

I'm leaning towards a "no" vote, since as you stressed a yes vote can not be changed to no, but a no vote can always be changed to a yes vote if the BOD wants to call a special vote and if they provide more detail on why they think it is required to have 175M more shares ready...

ready for what I want to know...?

[ku]

RRdog, great post 200k NO here.

[bigwup]

Already voted 200k no way

[swg_tdr]

"insidious" -- to change from a "non routine" to "routine" vote ( ...to enable brokers to vote yes for shareholders who do not submit instructions).

Forgetting the arcane legalities for a moment---this is anything but a routine vote. This legal change by mgmt was a clear indication IMO that they had no confidence in winning a vote for a continuation of current fiscal policy under normal circumstances and based on their poor record for creating fair comp value.

.

Well, the yes-voters can still undo their error and change to a no vote.

But what we really need is a new CFO who could "sell" any alternative financing to the three "you know who"

thanks again, RRddog

Best,
N

[realist1]

Thanks RRdog, I hope everyone can see the truth, the sense, the logic, and most importantly the shareholder value protection of voting "no".