Ann: Litigation update - Receipt of judgment , page-5

After reading the ruling it is plainly obvious that ex-Chairman Jones behaved as if the company was his own and cared very little of the shareholders. I have always felt Jones was setting up for a profitable exit in some form or another, firstly counting on a buyout from a large pharmaceutical (which he possibly had a deal going hence the Novo directors) but the Shareholder Group was the spanner in the works. As a result, he took the deceitful plan B with a windfall 12 months pay. He has been proven dishonest in using his position to gain advantage for himself and now he and his mates have to pay over $1m back. We have a lot to thank for the shareholder action otherwise INV103 would be gone and the company would be no more.

Secondly, it makes you wonder if the decisions around the Xtoll trial that failed its primary end point in July/August 2011 was set up for failure. The motive could have been to provide a cheaper takeover option for Novo with the CBio Board in support (questionably relationships?). The future results of INV103 will be interesting as cpn10 has a positive history except in this trial which was overshadowed by the questionably management at the time as confirmed in the court finding. I suppose it’s the nagging unknown that keeps me interested.