Replies to post #246718 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[DaubersUP]

Lol. Soon this crap will stop and we can concentrate on possible values of ipix drugs. 20 CDAs were not a joke or fluff. 20 real BPs and Bios are interested. Close a deal with the best partner and we take off to true valuations. Can’t wait. ;)

[loanranger]

I expressed no concern and made no statement that could be properly called an allegation.

Here's what I said:
"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."

And here's why I said it:
"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."


"The allegation, as I understand it, is Leo Ehrlich's son,Barrett Ehrlich and his company LLEX, may have assisted one of its clients to provide IPIX with its recent financing."
The question that is being asked is whether BE was in a control position with LLEX which resulted in an investment in IPIX by a LLEX client, by LLEX itself or by a LLEX affiliate. (Actually the primary question to be answered is whether BE had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the MFO transaction...it's a speculation based on the nature of his business and the absence of any identification of the actual investor).

I guess you're making the hypothetical technical legal argument that just because the Company of which BE is a Member (I'm assuming that meets the "has a substantial ownership interest or control" criteria, not knowing the internal workings and financial structure of LLEX) arranged an investment in IPIX or suggested that IPIX was a suitable investment for one of its clients, that doesn't qualify as a "transaction with a related person" as described in the IPIX 10-K. And that argument rests on whether he "has a substantial ownership interest or control".

I think that the structure of the investment.... providing an increased number of conversion shares issued to the investor in the event that the market price of the shares goes down....would add an element of concern on the part of an Independent Audit Committee required to approve such a transaction, so if BE can be shown to have influenced the transaction I'm sure that the Committee considered the implications prior to approval.

This is ALL speculation, obviously, unless or until IPIX identifies the MFO.


ps. It's interesting that your Audit Committee's policy clause stops short of the one which the Company uses as quoted above:
"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 next sentence seems like it might be relevant....why leave it out?