Replies to post #285463 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Umibe5690]

I advanced the argument that it was essentially free and if any value certainly not commensurate with value LP received. It does not matter whether LP alone or with selected investors got in for free. From my point of view, it constitutes tortious if not criminal conduct and damages are aggravated by the multiplicity of participants.

As lawyers, LG and LP should know better and have already exposed themselves to potential liability. Both, in my opinion, have abused their fiduciary responsibilities and are brazenly inviting a lawsuit, especially if during the next 6 months little or no value is seen in the rise of the shares.

Today's financing is a slap in the face to other accredited investors who paid cash for the privilege of extending their warrants. Even a non convertible loan is potentially dilutive when it is paid back. You may need to sell more stock, dilution, and the share price may be less than the SP was when the loan was made. Giving LG the benefit of the doubt, there may be value in the restriction limiting the exercise of warrants and flooding the market thus keeping the lid on a significant rise in market value. However, that value is questionable and unascertainable now. Those investors who paid cash paid fixed and ascertain able value which LP and her pals did not. And on the heels of her free extension, she now goes out to get a loan to tide the company over????? MB apologists defend that kind of behavior? It's much ado about nothing? Really? Not only are these posters being cavalier with their investment money but mine too. That's just plain adding insult to injury. No wonder management has no credibility on the Street and need to get "loans" from questionable entities who supposedly have a "love"affair with NWBO. The last two letters in NW"BO" tell the story.

[kabunushi]

Poorman you are quite wrong. You need to read all the filings and read carefully. I can't agree with you more on your rainy day car analogy which was suggested by LP's form 4, which was incredibly poorly written by leading with the nonsense which you call her on wrt to an absolute nonsense claim that suspension till November of the 29M extended warrants was part of 'consideration' i.e. payment for extending those warrants for 3 years. That was unbelievable nonsense and super pissed me off, too. But the latest 8-k explains the actual deal.

Have you not read the latest 8-k? It fully contradicts your post because LP put different 60M warrants into lock-up (along with the 29M rainy day car tranche). The suspension is real and potentially very valuable for those 60M warrants, 2 for 1 on the extended tranche. That value is far from insignificant if TLD is good and the stock runs and then falls back during the lockup period. As Umibe san points out, that value is contingent. But that is not at all the same as non-existent. However, in order to believe that the company can properly value the lock-up, we have to assume that the company can predict the actual TLD with some accuracy. If they can then it's not that hard to model very volatile trading that will ensue based on empirical data of other companies who were grossly undervalued before they revealed good TLD.

Maybe that's a big if but you are dead wrong that 'there is no consideration for the warrant extension'.

[biosectinvestor]

The consideration argument you may think sounds sophisticated, but it’s not. Your implication that the chairperson is giving the consideration is flatly incorrect. It would not stand up in any court of law. It’s purely made up.

The warrants were expiring. They gave an extension for a delay in execution, period. Your looking beyond the contract to make it invalid is irrelevant unless you can claim some other law makes it so. You have not referenced another law. You’ve suggested it is about “consideration”. And your argument is nonsense.