The two statements are not mutually exclusive:
I don't know that Diwan intended [the company to never make money for common shareholders], but he has certainly made it a priority to take care of himself [first], at great expense to the common shareholders. ...whereas it was just tough luck that he swindled the shareholders out of their $100 mn due to his egregious licensing terms and the general display of managerial corruption... - I believe Diwan originally thought that the company would be wildly successful, and a small portion of the profits would accrue to the investors.
- I think Diwan actually believed all of those early projections that FluCide would be rapidly approved, scale up cleanly, and more drugs would rapidly follow...enriching common shareholders.
- To hedge his bets, Diwan's portion would come out first, irrespective of profits to the investors. They were taking the risk, not he. This was intentional. Diwan knew this wasn't a fair negotiation, but still thought common shareholders would be benefitted.
- Despite his swindling and chicanery toward the shareholders to negotiate the first licensing agreement with himself, I believe he still thought common shareholders would profit. This was simply Diwan's way of controlling the future of the company and protecting his own outsized interests.
- Yes, this was unethical, but initially Diwan still thought the common shareholders would benefit handsomely. Perhaps he still thinks that, but I doubt he does with nearly his original conviction.
I presume we differ on this point of whether Diwan ever intended common shareholders to profit. I believe he did...it just wasn't very high on his list of priorities.
I get the sense you believe Diwan never intended common shareholders to make a profit. Is that correct? |