Probably one of the more interesting bits of the 10k.
Obviously LP is extremely restricted in what she can say about the SEC investigation, yet at the same time she clearly felt the obligation to declare that it was happening, deeming it as material information.
I think what LP is trying to tell us here is that; 'yes, they are investigating our internal governance and looking for any malfeasance, but they are also looking beyond us and taking testimony from third parties. They want information from our Special Litigation Commitee, and they want to know about our planned publication.'
Don't know why she called it the 'Special Litigation Commitee.'
Wasn't it previously called the 'Special Investigation Commitee'?
I think the naysayers who have ridiculed the idea that the investigation might go beyond NWBO and involve outside parties, will now have to adjust their thinking.
Why would the SEC want information about the planned publication?
Well, I can't see how there would be an issue about NWBO's actions in relation to the Publication. I think this is a veiled reference to some third party behaviour. Possibly interference with investigator authors. (We have evidence that suggests that the UK investigator was led to believe that NWBO was 'under investigation.' Forgotten his name but presumably his YT video is still available.)
Or possible pressure put on the journal to keep delaying the article. We know that journal publishers, conference organisers, ASCO, AACR etc. etc. have links with BP. So what better way to hamper NWBO, than by not rejecting the article, but to repeatedly request revisions and amendments. These publications have editorial boards whose members will be connected to BP.
So, it doesn't cause me concern that the SEC investigation now involves third parties.
Quite the opposite.
Anyway, the above is my opinion, and my working hypothesis as to what might be going on.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
