SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : NNVC - NanoViricides, Inc.
NNVC 1.210-2.4%1:20 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: KMBJN. who wrote (12501)12/5/2019 3:29:26 PM
From: HardToFind  Read Replies (1) of 12873
 
Again I wonder / ask, what are the most egregious instances of "fraud" that shareholders feel they have witnessed here?
Next was the change in the licensing "agreement" to exclude all forms of herpes besides HSV-1 and HSV-2 that were originally purportedly included. After promising to deliver a copy of the original to a shareholder who questioned this matter, the company came back claiming it was "lost". I'd call that a pretty egregious loss. I thought that shareholder claimed he had a copy of the original agreement...I may be mistaken about that. The revised agreement, signed by the same two TheraCour owners (70% and 10%) excluded VZV, CMV, etc. An awful shame for Diwan that the original was lost...although the loss is set to net him an additional $9 Mn before we even know if the FDA will approve it.

Add to that the fact that Diwan has repeatedly claimed both verbally at the last shareholder meeting and in press releases that he was only charging a 15% royalty on profits, when the document specifically states a 15% royalty on revenues. This could be a case of Diwan not remembering or understanding how good a deal he negotiated with himself, but the company refuses to respond to my questions about the matter. They're stonewalling.

Enough instances of egregious fraud?

I'm convinced Diwan is developing drugs on NNVC's dime and at risk to NNVC, then at the end, after risks have been resolved at NNVC's expense, getting third-party assessments of the value of said drugs while not considering the following:
  1. The drug concept was licensed once already (both for other indications HSV-1 and HSV-2, and that all herpes indications were included in the original agreement.
  2. NNVC paid for all of the development from when the idea for the drug was conceived.
  3. Diwan received an additional 30% markup for all R&D work on the drug.
  4. Diwan was also taking down a paycheck and bonuses from NNVC.
Are these third-party assessment documents being made available to the public? (They explicitly weren't made to Yidam for FluCide.)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News