People seem to be forgetting that this is not simply a case of...

People seem to be forgetting that this is not simply a case of remunerating an executive. This was a deal done to get a licence for a new product from an unrelated entity (with the only link being that this company is owned by PH). If IMU had paid cash upfront, it would have had to come up with that cash. Instead, the deal that was negotiated was to pay IMU shares instead of cash which lessens the financial burden on IMU (as we keep most of our cash for the research and trials), and the value of that deal would have been (if I'm right about the pricing) pegged at the price of IMU at that time. In addition, the seller (PH's company) takes on the risk of the payment milestones instead of getting paid everything upfront. To me this seems to have been a fantastic deal for IMU shareholders.

To begrudge payment to PH and other persons entitled to payment such as Prof Yuman Fong, simply because of some slight delay ( a matter of hours due to the timing difference) and to suggest that they have waited until the last minute to get approval and hence they shouldn't be entitled to payment seems to me to be inflexible and petty and smells a little like trying to take unfair advantage of having gotten our end of the deal but refusing to pay. I concur with O&Es analogy of the plumber having fixed the toilet but one refusing to pay simply coz he sent his invoice a little late.

Last but not least, whether PH already has enough shares and is rich is really irrelevant to the entire debate. They deserve to get paid for a deal done and entered into in good faith. I'll be voting a resounding YES.