Ann: Phosphagenics Receives Further Arbitration Process Update, page-105

This is the big fallacy that exists here and is not understood IMO.   Posters assume that it supports TPM and it may not as it is more to do about obligations and contracts and more likely IMO a patent / method or use of such in another product.   The assumption that something proves something else is has a very poor argument as a much simpler pathway could probably have been persued to get a outcome and pressure applied by publicly showing other successes etc.

This is a legal argument based on a contract  , ip, process, method that may have had penalty terms in it.  It is hard to prove IMO that knowledge of process was transferred etc   May new methods are created by pharma giants to reverse engineer and to create new IP rather than use existing. It is a fine line.

Read the words from POH very carefully as they are written that way for a reason.  Other party/s has stayed stum for a reason.

No-one has really publicly commented on the opposing party's position as you would expect to be the case  and there has been massive assumptions made at every level presented as fact and now believed by the forum masses.  Yes tehy don't have much to sink their teeth into so pait every other party as evil and themselves as white knights forgetting who the management and staff were at POH when this all started.

Just one Example- if another party used a method / process that was contracted / covered in agreements to create or process another compound it does not  prove TPM in any manner.  If POH can prove that method could only have come from their partner - well it may still get a  payout but does not support POH compound. A positive payment may mean just that- POH has cash but no real business still.  Considering POH are obliged to keep market informed of other business and nothing has been forthcoming ??

No one bar insiders knows but when you look at the HC history of posters claims in regards to TPM and POH claims etc HC posters in general have a very poor understanding and poor record on business outcomes at every level.  Weighting these posters underqualified opinions is another group think fallacy and google can't help even the most avid googlers.    HC has a terrible history of posters ( lazy researchers ) falling in love with stocks ( accepting other poor research) and only seeking out and posting positives.  Call it the thumbs up affect- everyone gets a thumb no matter how qualified they are to comment or how little research they have done. .   Have a look at how it worked out for CCE over the last years .  Not necessarily done with malicious intent but the result is the same and repeated in biotech and the recent FOMO ramps happening. 

Just add this post to try and get some objectivity as I would like to see a payout but unless specifics are presented ( unlikely) we will only see one biased side and it doesn't necessarily follow that it supports the science and management may well use $  to buy a business if shareholders are foolish enough to let em.

A positive outcome only justifies taking on the other party if it is greater than time and $ spent including opportunity cost.  

It is what it is and the next chapter at least looks like a reasonable short timeframe although I haven't see the word imminent used yet!!

The next chapter if positive is getting paid an dif negative is ..... well not worth thinking about .

Its a crapshoot still !