Replies to post #417154 on NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

No, they do not have to do so, you’re incorrect. If they have a material plan, they probably will, but the disclosure rules are not intended to disclose things that may not be intended to be disclosed. They have the option of disclosing every contract they have even with janitorial services if hey want to do so. Your point was it was deceptive not to and that is incorrect. If they had to file every retainer agreement contract they had, it would be ridiculous. One company I once worked for spend literally billions of dollars on routine legal matters around the world in all manner of jurisdictions and places. Do you think evry one of those contracts for retainer or “just the material ones” need to be included and disclosed? Most likely none of them need to be disclosed.

What people think is material and what is “material” are two different matters. If they were spending a material amount on those services, sure, if such services drove them into bankruptcy and were a form of looting the company, I have no doubt that a good litigator could argue that they needed to be disclosed. That’s not the situation or circumstance.

[biosectinvestor]

No, you’re just wrong on this point. Disclosing it was optional and more along the lines of management discussion and that is their reasonable option to do, to let shareholders they are at least pursuing the matter. It is doubtful that the contracts themselves are material contracts.

[sentiment_stocks]

I'm not a lawyer (obviously, lol!) but I get your point, I think. Since the company disclosed that they were negotiating the contacts in the Q, it implies that they felt mentioning these negotiations were material. And it could perhaps be argued that it did not fall under the ordinary course of doing business.

Personally, though, I think the whole topic is arguable on both sides.

There are plenty of topics that are incredibly material; however, under most circumstances, it's the company's choice as to when they will publicly disclose them. So long as they aren't disclosing that information to some (without NDAs), and not others, I think it can remain that way.

Additionally the company hasn't typically made public what they pay individual consultants, or the particular agreements made with them (other than Cognate and Advent).

And maybe the company determined this negotiation to have been made (or perhaps it's still being made and so, they've not reported its finalization?) under the ordinary course of doing business.

I also don't recall any discussion of what the compensation agreements were with the SAB when they were originally hired, or since then (June 2016) until that one passage in the 2020 Q.