RE:RE:RE:RE:Who’s on the Board? Two things really jarred in that last ann.
Re: the exclusions
‘this was an oversight on behalf of the Company’.
No it wasn’t - it was a culmination of the multiple errors of others apparently including an incorrectly drafted Clinical Protocol and chronic under-dosing of both drug and light leading to candidacy for exclusion.
‘The clinical protocol did not clearly define the bladder volume calculation to be used by the pharmacy’ - What??? - and this is the Company’s mistake??
It appears that Management is attempting to invoke vicarious liability (the responsibility of an employer for the negligent actions of their employee) but that is absolutely not the issue here. The harm is directly to the Company itself.
Acceptance of Shareholder liability for the mistakes of others represents a transfer of the cost of those mistakes from those who made them to the Company’s Shareholders. This may also have compromised our future rights under law.
No one wants to go to Court but this actually makes litigation more likely. By immediately and explicitly accepting total blame Management have removed any incentive for the Medical Establishment as eminently represented by our MSAB to repair the damage that a badly-drafted Clinical Protocol has imposed on our Company - as could be achieved through a swift re-inclusion and treatment of those excluded .
Management has for once moved with lightning speed - to totally own the negative consequences for its` Shareholders.