I can tell you have been around. As have I. Not so much in Pharma, but in business. No doubt CYDY is a small company reliant on third party providers which presents a unique set of challenges.
First Nader does not have pharma experience, and also will not accept advice from more experienced professionals (based on first hand accounts and observations). He was advised to not use Amarex and to hire a team to review BLA…prescient advice, which he ignored.
Second no doubt every one screws up, but you get second chances when you are big and get crushed when you are small. The HIV BLA was an opportunity to shine…the exact opposite happened with the RTF, a near fatal blow for a drug. Instead of “putting its best foot forward” with the BLA, Nader /CYDY slipped on the proverbial orange peel and served up an embarrassing submission that generated an RTF. MAYBE THAT WAS NOT A DEATH BLOW, in an of itself, but coupled with the CoVID trial designs, subsequent touting of failed trial results and FDA feeling the need to send out a PR, regarding trial design and results, I think it is a pretty safe bet there is irreparable damage to the Nader/ FDA relationship.
Third when frustrated, which is usual, Nader gets defensive and goes “ off script “, setting himself up for unforced errors, such as needless “ self imposed” timelines that are habitually missed and setting him up for outright lies, like “Revenue next week from Philippines “. Lots of lost credibility. What is the recovery time line for lost reputations?
Adding in the unjust enrichment cases and lack of director oversight, while it may be difficult to invoke “wholesale change” in the BOD, the current directors have shown no willingness to restrain Nader or protect shareholders.
Given Nader’s record and recent 10K revelations, I really don’t see how the BOD cannot act now on their own, without subjecting themselves to at minimum personal civil liability.
I seriously doubt anyone making a passive investment wanted to actively work at reshaping the company. We all invested because we believed in LL for at least HIV. Unfortunately, due to the lack of action by the current board, it appears the nuclear option was the only viable one, due to understandable lack of trust in the current BOD.
I will completely and vigorously debate the issue of black and white with Nader. He is unfit to hold a position of authority in a public company. He has proven his lack of character by selling shares while touting the stock, twice awarding himself and BOD unauthorized compensation ( stealing) and has lied about material events to shareholders.
To me integrity or lack thereof clears the lines that may be blurred based on many other complex issues. The ship has sailed on Nader second, third, fourth…tenth chances for execution blunders. More importantly, if there is no trust in leadership, the company will fail. Very simple. Nader is untrustworthy and must go; there is no added value there. Perhaps there is viable compromise on the BOD.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
