I would recommend you look into a reverse split a little more before you post about it having anything to do with returning money. A reverse split multiplies the share price in accordance with the reduction in share count. So for example, if at the time of the split the share price is $3.00:
With a 1:2 reverse split, the share price doubles to $6
With a 1:4 reverse split, the share price quadruples to $12
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with returning money to shareholders. The only time that happens is when someone holds an odd number of shares that isn't divisible into a whole number by split ratio. In that case, the company can choose to compensate for the left over share fraction, or in this case as INO chose to do, simply round the share count up for that investor up to the next whole number.
So, if it does not have anything to do with raising or disrupting cash, why do a reverse split? Well in this particular case, the motive is to make the stock more attractive to institutional holders. The benefit (in theory) is that this will make the stock less subject to manipulation and result in a more stable stock price.
If that's the case, why all the negativity around the issue? Well, simply because there is another reason companies will initiate a reverse split - that being when a company's share price falls below the listing standard to remain on an exchange. In that case the reverse split is seen as the sign of a company in it's death throes. It may or may not be the case that the company goes under. For example, see PEIX which just underwent a 15 for one reverse split last summer. In their case, the reverse split helped them remain on the NASDAQ long enough for corn prices to come down and ethanol market to recover.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
