InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

BWIS

12/05/20 8:11 PM

#336285 RE: JerryCampbell #336283

Would they demand a board member who is working for a competitor?
icon url

CherryTree1

12/05/20 8:12 PM

#336286 RE: JerryCampbell #336283

That is right and immediately recognize her integrity.
When Woodford sent Katherine Wolf from Ondra to steal their DCVAX technology Linda flipped him a big bird and told him to hit the road . . . and never looked back.
and she has gotten to the 1 yard line without his big money help.

GO LINDA GO.

icon url

Bright Boy

12/05/20 8:55 PM

#336291 RE: JerryCampbell #336283

Pure speculation on your part Campbell. You have no idea what a major investor would see when conducting DD!!! A close friend of mine is a major investor (many millions over the last 5 years) and never thought twice about Neil Woodford. Your comment suggests that major players depend on other major players in making their investment decisions. Totally absurd!!! If you have an investment in Northwest, did you check with Woodford before taking a position???
icon url

HappyLibrarian

12/06/20 10:32 AM

#336340 RE: JerryCampbell #336283

Correct, and great Top Line data will help potential investors overlook NWBO’s past to some extent but that bad history has driven and will drive others away and that could limit our potential returns or the speed with which we can realize those returns.

Great Top Line Data is a game changer but it is not a panacea for NWBO’s ills.

This is why transparency and better corporate governance are not just annoying demands to help satisfy the impatience of a few retail shareholders, they are essential but not sufficient prerequisites to the long-term reputation repair that is needed to attract big investors if NWBO wants to go it alone or if NWBO wants to get Big Pharma to partner and put millions or billions on the line while leaving NWBO in control.

Given the ego component (or more charitably the sense of mission that goes beyond dollars and cents), Linda Powers might well refuse any arrangement that costs her control even if it would be very lucrative for all shareholders, and with Neil Woodford, how far she was willing to damage our interests to protect her total control was made manifest in terms of a 90% drop we are only beginning to recover from.