Replies to post #246669 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[scottsmith]

I agree that there is no proof, though I believe that a LE (law enforcement not leo ehrlich) agent would argue probable cause exists to make the stop.

I also agree it was a good find. Let me reiterate, your humble servant didn't make the find. One of my sources did. And as a good journalist, I never reveal my sources.

[loanranger]

"The main point is there's no proof Leo hooked up with that firm."
That's true. And it's not that unusual for a lender or investor to remain unidentified in a filing, just as the $2M pipe investors weren't identified. Then again I'm not sure why one would decline to identify themselves with a Company intent on curing/preventing diseases.

FYI:
Per P.94 of the 10-K (under ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE.)
Related Party Transactions:
"The Audit Committee’s charter requires it to approve or ratify certain transactions involving the Company and “related persons,” as defined under the relevant SEC rules. Any transaction with a related person, other than transactions available to all employees generally or involving aggregate amounts of less than $120,000, must be approved or ratified by the Audit Committee. The policy applies to all executive officers, directors and their family members and entities in which any of these individuals has a substantial ownership interest or control. None of such related persons has been involved in any transactions with us since the beginning of fiscal 2018 which are required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 of SEC Regulation S-K. For information about transactions with related persons that were entered into before fiscal 2018, see Notes 9 and 10 in the accompanying notes to the financial statements."

Barrett Ehrlich is identified as one of the children of Leo Ehrlich in the linked filing and a Member of LLEX on its website. If LLEX is involved with the MFO investment in IPIX the Audit Committee would have likely approved or ratified the transaction and I guess we'll find out about it next year.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379006/000114420406047712/v057372_10sb.htm


https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/04/03/no-sanctions-for-the-law-firm-behind-failed-case.html
https://www.llexpartners.com/barrett-ehrlich
Spittin' image?