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. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: BoredMember who wrote (12476)12/3/2019 2:15:43 PM
From: HardToFind  Respond to of 12873
 
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?



To: BoredMember who wrote (12476)12/3/2019 4:18:27 PM
From: HardToFind  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12873
 
Remember, Nanoviricides has succeeded far beyond what Dr. Anil Diwan and Dr. Eugene Seymour anticipated when this scheme was hatched. It is all in how one defines success.
I am curious why it is that you regularly dance around your point, but refrain from actually stating that you believe Diwan (and Seymour) had absolutely no intention for the company to succeed for the common shareholders...intended as a fraud from the very beginning.

Why is it that you're unwilling to explicitly state what you apparently believe?

Do you also believe the science is a fraud, never intended to work?

C'mon, you poke fun when the rest of us make statements you apparently disagree with. Are you afraid to state your opinions explicitly? If so, why?