Jake, you made a few leading statements that would benefit from clarification. Please explain what you see is the significance of Zimmer Lucas Capital. If the shares had been purchased, then shorted against the box, the position is net neutral and the voting power should have shifted to the parties that bought the shorted shares, don't you think? Also, in your earlier post, you mentioned PPHM break up value is greater than reflected in share price. What value are you assigning to PPHM technology under development? Also, what percentage of shares would a hedge fund need to hold before they might carry enough sway to force any action on PPHM? Since the Russell rebalancing, the reported institutional ownership has been a fairly small percentage of PPHM outstanding shares. We don't know what happened to the 30 million shares, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense for parties to pick them up at 75 cents for the purposes of capturing PPHM break up value.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
