They are no doubt, I believe, consulting with counsel, counsel has consulted with the SEC, and whatever the delay, I believe, which is not a fact, I believe they take it all seriously enough not to violate the law, or their professional duties.
Biosect, I understand you are NOT saying we got bad data. I am sorry I am in no way trying to offend you, but I like the situation you picturized above in Italic that I cut & pasted from your post. Thanks for what you yourself picturize a scenario which is very possible that might have very well happened between LG and his Security Lawyer. But on the same token, do you believe their Security Lawyer after checking with the SEC still advise them to delay reporting bad news this long after close to 3 months since DL?? Also will their Security Lawyer not ask them why they delay the 10Q while sitting on bad data? or how comes LP PRd they got the extension within legally allowed timeline. How could SEC allow them to delay the 10Q while they have bad data?
Thanks for explaining this scenario below that I agree completely with you that the delay could be due to SAB looking at subcategories more thoroughly or taking time to convincingly demonstrating contemporaneous SOCs or in a nutshell the delay could be just waiting on the publication that will solve all these New Endpoints compatibility.
I know you are Long NWBO. I learned a lot from you. I always love your posts. I thought hundred times before submitting this post. Thought you wouldn't mind because I am only trying to learn more from you.