Theralase Technologies Inc. V.TLT

RE:Shareholder Group

[Quattro74]

I'm in general in favor of this as long as we pick our representatives wisely. I vote for a small group like Macer Hempdoc Enrique Vestor. I would like to see how TLT handles the next month or two first tho. IF they do a great job coming out of Covid coma and we begin seeing solid data and PRs and corresponding SP increases then maybe such a group isn't needed?

consultant99 wrote: There is a reason companies like to hide out on the Venture exchange - you can pretty well do what you want. There are no large institutional shareholders holding your feet to the fire and no mainstream analyists to judge your progress and plans.

The reason is simple. Theralase is made up of a large number of retail shareholders none of whom have as large a stake in the company as Roger and the management group.

If you are unhappy with the way the company is operating you can sell. You can ask the company for information or suggest they do something but my guess is you don't get the response that you want - if you get a response at all.

If shareholders representing 5% (10 million shares) or more of the company were to form a group the company would very much start paying attention to what you were asking and saying. Why? At that level of ownership you can nominate directors and propose motions at an AGM for starters. (Initially it would be a non-binding group of interested shareholders. If it were to progress to the point of making resolutions or nominating directors it could involve a formal agreement or the signing of share proxies in favour of a memebr(s) of the group to vote shares at an AGM).

What would make sense is a few representatives of a shareholder group requesting  a meeting with management to go over a number of issues raised by the members and the minutes from that meeting could be shared with the group. 

A proactive management would see this as an opportunity to interact with committed shareholders - to provide more clarity around the development process and to understand what shareholders want to see from management. It also sends a message that shareholders are not going to be pushed around.

I throw this out for discussion. Like most of the longs in this company I have long been sold on the technology and as time progresses it is management that gives me pause and concern.

The financing last year was a disaster from a shareholder prospective and the phase 2 trial has not progressed to where we had hoped it would be.

Offering an extension on the 0.30 warrants that expired is another questionable move.

Virtually no results from the phase 2 - safety or efficacy and little clarity as to what management thinks the timeline could be for AA. 

It is all fine for the share price to scrap the bottom of the charts if you know what is going on and you are getting paid. It is quite another to have invested money with the expectation of a return only to see your investment decline in value and no idea if the company is on track to deliver future earnings and when.

Even a few reassuring words like "there have been no serious health issues encountered with the treatment of any of the patients in the trial and the results are encouraging or as expected". 

Further more clarity around what BTD and AA designations would mean for the company and what a fast track timeline might look like for getting approval. 

I also understand the company is looking at two new indications but find it a little puzzling that we are left guessing at which one they will be pursuing first and when. Yes I know when the majority of the  sites are up and operating on the phase 2 but when might that be; a guess even?

The world is moving on and new drugs and therapies are being developed everyday. We don't have forever to get this treatment to market and start working on the other suite of potential treatments. I would feel a whole lot better if we were back at 0.60 and there was a wind at our back instead of being under 0.25 with the wind in our face