Replies to post #169375 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[bigwup]

Exactly. What a joke. Damn thieves.

[skweze]

In the below hypothetical, wouldn't the 10.5% dividend be diluted by the amount of the fee for shorting?

The short increase is almost the exact number of preferred shares that are convertible at $3. Seems to support my theory that the IBs involved with the ATM and preferred deals worked together to artificially inflate the PPS to $3 and then short, giving them virtually a risk free 10.5% dividend.

And CP, your idea of this not being risk free because PPHM could convert the shares at $3.90 leaving you with a naked short is not accurate. In cases of preferred redemption that I can find, the company must give preferred shareholders adequate notice and set a date by which that would occur. They can't simply decide to do it one day, suck the PPHMP out of your account in exchange for $3.90 a share and leave you hanging. It's a pretty long process. Here's an example I could find of a preferred redemption process.

[Protector]

That is besides the point. You are only covered to 3$. If PPHM does it when the pps is 4 or 7$ then want?

Did the shorters get out and took a cash loss? Did they convert at 3$ and if they shorted at 3$ broke even and now loose their 10.5%? Or below 3$ and took a loss? At the most they have 15 cent if they would all have shorted at that precise peek (which can't be the pps fluctuated around 3$). Now they may have a profit but their PPHMP would convert at an equally large loss = zero!

But even besides all that. If they (whoever you think they are because I used to remember you think it is me - well me and my team/group) can rally the stock up to 3+$ coming from the 1.70$ area then don't you think it would have been easier to buy at 1.70$ for a while and then rally it up and sell above 3$. No risk, no fuss AND NO IDENTITY DISCLOSURE!!!!!

Going through MLV for the public offering is not an ANONYMOUS PROCESS and the total traded volume of PPHMP on NASDAQ is neglect able compared to the 700K outstanding shares.

So verification with this drastic reduction of the possible parties involved would be a peace of cake for the SEC would you complain about this.

Why, because if your theory is correct, which it isn't, then those responsible can be picked from a list just like that at MLV or one of its sub-parties.

Do you honestly thing me and my team would be that stupid :) :)