To: donpat who wrote (11068 ) 8/28/2018 6:41:11 PM From: HardToFind Read Replies (3) | Respond to Seymour was fired? Red herring again mon amie! Consistent youse are!! I did say "apparently fired". I base this on the following facts:After Seymour supposedly tendered his resignation, there was a goodly amount of time spent negotiating the terms of his exit. Ordinarily, this would not be required, so I assume his exit wasn't "ordinary". He was given salary and options for the full duration of his original employment contract (end of 2018) even though he supposedly quit nearly a year early. He was immediately removed from the board, even though he remained in the company's employ as an emeritus consultant. There was no necessity to do that if everybody was happy together. He was given a cash settlement upon his exit for "expenses". I suspect this was for legal expenses to negotiate the terms of his exit, as the company had broken the agreement. He was required to sign a non-disparagement agreement (to hold his tongue) as part of his exit agreement. I find the wording in the 14 May 2018 announcement curious: "Dr. Seymour has stated that he was resigning for personal reasons and to make room for a pharmaceutical industry executive with experience in drug development through regulatory stages." Yes, that is what Dr. Seymour stated because he was worth more if he held his tongue, and he knew it. But I suspect Diwan knows that is not the whole truth. So rather than telling the whole truth about the reason(s), Diwan merely references Seymour's statement. In Watergate terminology that's called a non-denial denial I do know that Seymour claimed he was in the midst of "working with" Diwan to modify the licensing agreement "to the shareholders' benefit". Seymour had put me off from answering the concern I had about the disparity between his statements and the SEC filings with regard to the royalty terms for over a month and numerous emails. Diwan has a history of "looking out for himself" at the expense of the shareholders. Brian Bramell of Yidam, Inc was so frustrated with Diwan's "greed" that it apparently made Diwan find a way to renege on Seymour's agreement to put him on as a board member. It drove Bramell, an early investor and supporter of the NNVC, to sue the company. From what I could tell, the company never denied the facts of Bramell's complaints. They instead attacked the suit based on jurisdiction (Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut...who has jurisdiction), standing (who is Yidam, a minor shareholder, to sue us in the name of all the shareholders), the lack of assertion of damages, yada, yada, yada...procedural issues rather than substantive issues of the case. They eventually paid Bramell's group $150K to quit the suit. That's three would-be board members not now on the board for seemingly similar reasons of Diwan's looking out for himself a bit too much: Bramell, Seymour, and Boniuk.
