News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Dan88

06/11/16 1:07 PM

#64213 RE: OutsideLane #64208

"You, me, Woodford and every public shareholder is wiped out, and most done perfectly legally. For all the people who say it is all for the cancer patients, you will be right, but you won't be part of the success."

Please take that "me" out for God sake. You should go back reading all sec filing again to see where the patents are now.

The company has evolved toward more normal company since the Woodford-company discord last year. One improvement is its expanding independent directors, and the other is its paid off that in-trust money of about $70 k for the patents so the patent portfolio has since been in the control of nwbo.

Too many "little" people here change their moods everyday depending on whether they have sold or bought for a few pennies. Pity.

You are not one of those "little" investors, but a permabear which I respect, but please provide your opinion with substance.

It is either $0.4 loss or $30 gain. Trust me.

Lastly, will you let this post stand?





icon url

md1225

06/11/16 2:08 PM

#64214 RE: OutsideLane #64208

Do you really think that Linda would purposely sabotage NWBO ??????

Ken Lay's fate might have taught her a bit no?

Les is one of the most honest men he is working diligently with Linda to see DCVAXL approval.
icon url

CherryTree1

06/11/16 3:47 PM

#64217 RE: OutsideLane #64208

The reasons you state are:
(1) Not buying the argument that regulators have forbade them from releasing positive information.
(2) Despite the hold and cessation of recruitment, the amount of money that flows to Cognate has barely ebbed. Why?
(3) Patents themselves are sheltered off somewhere
(4) Had assets safely been secured within the company, the stock would be trading much higher.
(5) if NWBO goes bankrupt, Cognate will continue to exist so with all the money paid, they are rich is cash, and have ALL the manufacturing capacity and knowledge and capability on making DCVAX.
This does not address the original allegation that Linda is deliberately bankrupting the company. This explains how Linda has protected the asset in the event of bankruptcy or take over attempts which can be argued are wise and astute moves, but these are not plausible or compelling reasons that she is deliberately bankrupting the company.