Replies to post #54213 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[MinnieM]

The bottom line is we are seeing results. It isn't just talk.

I'm really going to be happy once that third trial shows up here:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Cellceutix+Pharmaceuticals&Search=Search

[korogi]

I agree that Mr. Ehrlich has not only rescued the company from previous management, but also continued to execute on drug development quite rapidly. Three compounds in clinical trials this year is quite an achievement, especially given the diverse indications and substantial clinical application.

It is also important to distinguish between those things Ehrlich and Menon have control over versus those they do not. Reporting results of the Ph1 K trial at DF is an example of not having control, even though we were led to believe P53/P21 lab results would be available from DF about a year ago in a PR, or in time for 2013 ASCO. The Prurisol trial shift/delay announced last September due to the PolyMedix asset purchase was an abrupt change in strategy that took many by surprise. This was in their control, and I happen to believe this was an excellent strategic move, even though it did increase timelines significantly for Prurisol development.

However, at R&R last September, Ehrlich was quite specific in saying that "uplisting is a priority." I believe he also referenced "interviewing Board candidates" (but I do not trust my memory on the latter). He also specifically stated "there will be no reverse split," and joked about "expecting applause" for that.

In order to uplist, an independent board must be appointed (with a minimum of 3 independent members, one of whom must qualify as a "financial expert" so that there is an independent audit committee). Currently we have a board of directors consisting of two "insiders" (Ehrlich and Menon) and no independents. There has been no apparent movement on seating independents over the last 5+ months. Why say "uplisting is a priority" and then not proceed? Common explanations include control issues (able to be more nimble without independents) and financial concerns (directing funding towards trials where they will do the most good to advance the company's compounds). All quite understandable.

Yet with the specter of past (and potentially present)conflicts of interest renewed by the recent guilt-by-association "hit piece," one can understand the renewed call for independent oversight, even with the progression of clinical trails underway. My sense is that Ehrlich will proceed expediently with independents once a partnership for Brilicidan has been established, but I wonder whether a partnership will occur without independent oversight. This could be a chicken/egg dilemma.

Perhaps the easiest remedy is for Mr. Ehrlich to explain his timeline for a board to be seated, and put to rest any specter of conflicting interests. The market likes to worry, and the market does not like the absence of follow-though once a goal has been publicly stated. I would respectfully recommend Ehrlich take these bulls by the horns at his first opportunity, if only to put to rest negative speculation and the consequences of same.

disclosure: long 60K+ shares

And frankly, I think sometimes the man doesn't get enough credit. Now, that's not to say there aren't questions that need to be answered or steps to be taken to advance the company from a business development standpoint. I believe those answers and those steps will happen at the appropriate time.