Replies to post #235901 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

PhRising, i think that is because a second request probably will have another mind setting.

I have no idea how long it takes for that to set up but it will be several weeks, maybe a couple of months. So we'll have extra information or some voters might have changed their minds if they see PPHM persists a second time and hence might have a good reason.

Some people vote NO as a signal to BoD/management thinking it wouldn't matter anyways because PPHM already secured a YES. But a second vote would prove that wrong and that group of voters may no longer give the signal a priority (given the signal would have been given in the first vote).

But frankly, all that is at the moment a lesser concern to me compared to what i wrote in my previous post in this linked-chain.

While i have my yes voting fixed i still would like to answer the question of WHY BoD ADVISES YES to Prop #3 but sets up the vote to almost surely be a NO (unless as i wrote the secured a YES some-way under this model).

With the NON-ROUTINE setup, given about 100Mil Broker non votes they needed 50Mil YES votes. With the current model and ROUTINE they need some more then 100Mil YES votes (because all shares, even non voters, count for the quorum). And NO VOTING equals a NO vote. And on top of that, after a mine-field of broker non-votes the past years, in a consistent way proportional to # outstanding shares, they claim NOT TO EXPECT MANY BROKER NON VOTES.

I get CRAZY from such puzzles! This one does NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME. Therefor i torture me mind to answer the question: WHAT CAN THEY DO IN CASE OF A DOUBLE NO on PROP #3 THAT THEY COULD OTHERWISE NOT GET AWAY WITH?

Is the LOW PPS part of making us vote NO. Is the low to non (outside Q/CC) communication part of making us vote NO. Is the hacking on PPHM/BoD part of creating artificial dissatisfaction to make us vote NO. Is asking for a YES therefore the BEST strategy to make us vote NO on top of all broker-non-vote NO's. Would a resulting MASSIVE NO justify certain OTHER actions that shareholders would otherwise oppose?