News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Sharkee2

09/03/20 1:07 PM

#18305 RE: TraderInvictus #18303

Because that would be illegal. Period.

These 'what if' scenarios are just fantasy and display a lack of understanding of how boards / shareholder rights work. Sorry if that sounded harsh and I don't want to belabor the point, what you're suggesting will never happen in the US.
icon url

nelskof

09/03/20 1:08 PM

#18306 RE: TraderInvictus #18303

IP, there is no way GEM could take 100% of the revenue of a sale of Aviptadil like you alluded to earlier. Even in the Sears transaction those funds went to Sears.
icon url

trademax42

09/03/20 1:15 PM

#18311 RE: TraderInvictus #18303

Not sure how the company can be sold without considering due interest of all shareholders, not only for the 64%. Beyond me.

Besides, have the board been replaced as of yet? GEM controls only 30.93% of the registered shares. The rest is call option/warrants exercised period 2022/2023 for most part.

Many things can happen, but they have not happened.

$RLFT

imho only