IFF to my knowledge is not the brains behind the SubB2M...

IFF to my knowledge is not the brains behind the SubB2M technology in the recent Ovarian and Breast Cancer test results, on that basis IFF isn't the brains behind the SP re rate from 60-80c to where we are now. It is the exquisite results from the SubB2M trial that is pumping this stock, and for bloody good reason !!

To me this looks like two co-founders who have had the diagnostic technology that they created (Bard1 Kits) be superseded by the SubB2M tech and they are now disgruntled (as you would be) and it looks like they're trying to get a compensated. Even if it is a 20% chance they get their performance shares, it's worth having a crack.

Is it not obvious to anyone else that SubB2M makes the Bard1 Ovarian/Breast diagnostic kits redundant? The only way I see the Bard1 kits being viable is if the cost for large volume of Bard1 test kits is substantially lower than the SubB2M test kits thus making it a viable option for certain countries or parts of the population.

I agree with @1lluminator that David Williams and Jeffrey Emanuel would have supported the separation of the founders and Bard1. David Williams is extremely smart and comes across to me as something who's strength is separating emotion from business. As it would be hard to say bye bye to the founders' but he would know it is the best decision for the company's future.

It is human nature to take pride in your work, and it would be crushing to see a technology that you worked on for many years suddenly be inferior to something else. I do feel for founders and I have no issue with them trying to get something back.

All IMO and DYOR blah blah.