Replies to post #271023 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Carboat]

However, the extension is not automatic and one must show a plan to get over $1 which means SH approval of a split that they can show Nasdaq they have the authority to do if necessary.

This is not a requirement to get an extension. Look at all of the companies that have had extensions without a RS vote.
"If a company listed on the NCM is unable to regain compliance with the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement within the initial 180 day period, it will receive a second 180 day grace period provided the company (a) has at least $1 million in market value of shares held by non-affiliates and satisfies all of the other listing requirements for initial listing on the NCM "

[The Other Guy]

I agree this is our most available chance to protest by voting no. What a farce; the top four candidates with the most votes is elected to the BOD. There are only four on the proxy! No write in opportunity? If I could I would vote Mickey Mouse. Certainly, he could do a better job then these goofs.

[The Other Guy]

geocappy1, the other option we have is to attend the ASM. I vowed not to put another dime towards this company unless there was some sign of progress, however, if the ASM is the only venue we get to speak our minds directly to this crew I am considering attending and doing so.

[jakedogman1]

From the proxy:

"The Board of Directors also believes that the Reverse Split and any resulting increase in the per share price of our common stock should also enhance the acceptability and marketability of our common stock to the financial community and investing public. Many institutional investors have policies prohibiting them from holding lower-priced stocks in their portfolios, which reduces the number of potential buyers of our common stock. Additionally, analysts at many brokerage firms are reluctant to recommend lower-priced stocks to their clients or monitor the activity of lower-priced stocks. Brokerage houses also frequently have internal practices and policies that discourage individual brokers from dealing in lower-priced stocks. Further, because brokers’ commissions on lower-priced stock generally represent a higher percentage of the stock price than commissions on higher priced stock, investors in lower-priced stocks pay transaction costs which are a higher percentage of their total share value, which may limit the willingness of individual investors and institutions to purchase our common stock."

The above statement in the proxy is pure BS given mgmt has been told for years to improve the BOD as a way to increase institutional ownership. PPHM has the lowest score possible from ISS for corp governance, a big part of the lowest score is BOD structure and comp.

Mgmt has gone out of there way to make the company institutionally unfriendly for a reason. No oversight or accountability and institutional ownership would most likely increase share price.

Sorry folks but imo we are dealing with some bad actors that need to be removed. A couple of folks on ihub made contact with the attorneys on the BOD lawsuit. It is alive and well and hopefully expanding.

IMO and based on discussions with state gov folks, Delaware wants to improve its image in the biz world and just might jump at the opportunity to make an example of BOD malfeasance. I don't think one can find a better example of the PPHM BOD.

SK himself stated how valuable AVID is and gave metrics to demonstrate. But they have buried AVID numbers so one could not determine value.

As I have said many times, mgmt's objectives of transferring ownership of the company to themselves at the cheapest price and at the expense of shareholders seems to be the MO.

The good news is enough folks are fed up and are starting to do something. They are not only seeking removal, but restitution for previous self dealing behavior.