Background of the inventor is irrelevant
I am an investor in IMUN and not ITL. I found out about this background issue from the husband of patient #11 that is an investor in ITL. He told me he did due diligence on this issue and that his brother that was with the Israel government incubator has also researched the issue and found it was not relevant. The background did not matter to me when i saw how the drug worked on my neighbor and heard the wonderful story of patient #11.
If Seth and Antonio in fact did't know about the background it is because they didn't care to ask. Their concern probably was to know if the technology they were about to license had real value. I have not heard anyone argue here that the technology that was licensed is anything but full of potential.
I think IMUN is hoping this issue will help them in court. However, I can not see how 25yo events would be an issue in a contract dispute. Maybe they are thinking that there is some security law violation in non-dislosure? When I was an officer of a public company I had to fill out a form that asked if I had any convictions in the past 10yrs. For harnoy it is over 25yrs ago. I just think it is so immaterial to the issues.
I think IMUN needs to be careful here in overestimating the leverage this issue might provide. I believe that the issue will be whether their was real value in the technology that was licensed. Does the background of the inventor change the value of the intellectual property? I dont think so. I think IMUN will have a hard time to convince anyone that the background makes any real difference.
My hope is that Seth will stop spending our money on pursuing legal claims and instead get to the settlement table. Apparently Seth believes he can just drive ITL bankrupt in legal proceedings and pick up the intellectual property. I doubt very much that the IP is worth much without harnoy. Also the value of the IP alone without all the infrastructure and trained people is a much diminished value. There is no win here for IMUN shareholders other than a quick settlement that stops legal spending and gets us IMUN shareholders a stake in the future of ITL.
If IMUN continues this course, there will be a shareholder law suit against IMUN. I have already contributed to this effort and know the attorney is drafting the suit. This will also drain IMUN resources and I dont think IMUN shareholders will win even if they win.
Now is the time for Seth to really consider what is best for us shareholders. Our interest is in having a share in the future success of ITL, not in destroying ITL and the inventor.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
