To: cacmed who wrote (10427 ) 6/7/2018 9:03:58 PM From: HardToFind Read Replies (1) | Respond to The explanation posited was that the entangled relationship protected the intellectual property and that complexity, along with the superior voting rights held by the principals, was designed to prevent a low-ball take over bid in the event that the outcome was as revolutionary as they were hoping. That explains some of it. That does not explain why TheraCour got such a huge royalty ahead of the shareholders (revenues vs. profits), to the point of threatening the viability of the company. It does not explain why Yidam, Ltd. investors indicated in court documents that they felt so deceived and betrayed. It does not explain why in the case of bankruptcy investors, after presumably spending nearly $100 million on drug development under the leadership of Diwan, stand to get nothing while while TheraCour gets everything. TheraCour gets 15% of revenues pre-bankruptcy for maybe spending a few million to get things to the point of going public. How about, in the case of bankruptcy, switching the tables and saying that if NNVC goes bankrupt, shareholders would retain TheraCour's 15% of revenues, and TheraCour would get all of the rest like NNVC would have today?Diwan has all of the voting rights, and Current NNVC shareholders have such a lousy deal that, upon scrutiny, it appears to be of questionable value. I still believe they wanted to succeed. Agreed, but they were nicely hedged by the deal to make pretty good money either way.
