InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

chinatown1980

04/15/17 11:40 AM

#113152 RE: learningcurve2020 #113150

Yes, Woodford commissioned his own investigation to be done. We never found out the results, but his comments about governance issues were made subsequent to it and the outcome could have well prompted a formal request to the SEC. We just don't know. Without doubt, there are a multitude of red flags.
icon url

DoGood_DoWell

04/15/17 12:10 PM

#113158 RE: learningcurve2020 #113150

Lets see...break that one down. Woodford tries to insert someone under his control and pay as a board member who has no qualifications to serve on the board. NWBO responds with board members who are actually qualified to serve.

He contractually forces NWBO to use a conflicted consultant to acquire confidential materials who is on the board of a company that is party to a lawsuit against the company Woodford's investors are invested in and which could have contributed to negative financial and legal outcomes for his own investors - a double conflict.

Woodford hires Louis Freeh who also represents an international criminal who the media describes overwhelmingly as a nefarious individual except Sunday Times' Danny Fortson, who portrays him in a far more neutral light. Danny, who normally covers oil and gas, steps out of his area of expertise and suddenly develops a keen interest in NWBO and Woodford's investment in the company, writing story after story attacking NWBO.

Is Fortson writing articles at the behest of Louis Freeh? Who else does Louis Freeh represent in the cancer biotech space? How couldn't the SEC investigate this?
icon url

biosectinvestor

04/15/17 9:07 PM

#113201 RE: learningcurve2020 #113150

He also didn't sell. Just because they did not do what he wanted, doesn't actually mean he's right. The SEC doesn't operate that way.

No doubt the persons bringing the suit that was to be dismissed, or similar such folks, made every effort to preserve their case, and the SEC may not feel that there is anything there, but they would be remiss not to look into it. The motion to dismiss, however, would be a strong reason or them not to take that very far.

That case was dismissed and this old story, is being raised again. It seems some people, are grasping for straws now.