RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Board chair at ONC" If the company is going to have important developments totally ignored, what chance do we shareholders have of success????" I think that sums it up perfectly on how this long-term intractable problem steam-rolled into a serious issue in the last 4 months and culminated with that analyst-apathetic quarterly call.
I am happy to try to get a call with the Chairwomen to discuss items. Frankly, given we can't cross borders, it may be helpful to have someone up there that can be face-to-face with one of them in their offices. That can still be done within health guidelines I assume. Or do it outside on someones nice patio overlooking the city! Whether they will dain to do this is the question.
As for votes, I believe someone in the past tallied it up around 30%, but that would be lower with the dilution unless everyone's added. So assume 25%. I don't know the voting rules as to what is needed for Board approval. I suppose we could also approach others if we need to get more.
SPCEO1 wrote: I ahve a lot of sympathy for your point of view, but I need to point out some things that run counter to your assertions.
First, I am sure there are many capable people in Quebec who could serve on the board. That may not be ideal, but I don't think it has to be a fatal flaw. TH is a French Canadian company and I don't really have a problem with that. Now, having noted that, it is also worth noting that the company's website highlights their commitmentto diversity yet we are not seeing the board reflect the diversity of the ownership of the company (almsot 80% US). So, this does raise some obviosu questions. And while TH could probably find someone in Quebec with the requiste credentials of a deep knowledge of the US capital markets and many helpful connections to those markets, it just makes sense to diversify a bit. And I think it is worth reiterating that our heavily French Canadian board and management team has put the company ont he precipice of some really big things while not chewing up a lot of shareholder resources in the process, so they are not dimwits, other than with respect to intercting with the caotial markets. That needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed yesterday.
Second, for the most part, they have treated me with respect. On the night of the OO, I called the CFO's cell phone and he answered the call, knowing full well how unhappy I would be. He deserves credit for not dodging that call. Leah has always been helpful and gotten me responses to questions I have had. Paul did not live up to the claim he would not sell shares too cheaply, so that is unfortunate. And the CFO did block me from speaking with Dawn last fall when I requested it. So, there are a few blemishes but I don't have major concerns on that front.
All I can say on the misteps issue is they clearly have had many when it comes to promoting the share price. That is just undeniable. I am not even sure how they got to the place they have on that front, but it is really awful and needs to be fixed imediately. On just about every other area other than marketing their drugs, I really only can compliment them for how well the company has been managed. But the share price is the ultimate judge and they have gotten a failing grade.
I am very concerned about the company's stock not reaching its potnetial. How could any reasonable investor not be when there have been very interesting developments and no analyst can take the time to ask a singe question about them on the call. Leasure was just added and no one wanted to ask him anything to find out more about his approach to global marketing???? Marsolais was on the call and no one wanted to ask him about some details on the AACR research???? That is emblematic of some larger problem that simply cannot be allowed to go on. If the company is going to have important developments totally ignored, what chance do we shareholders have of success????
jeffm34 wrote: I say the 2 board members with the least amount of skin in the game. Who knows, maybe we will see some share purchases by the board if they are reading what is going on here.
What is left to convince you that something like this needs to be done? Just look at the current board make up. Sure these individuals may have some positive attributes but do you really believe this is the best the company can do when they haven't even looked outside their own city ?
Are you satisfied with the way the company has treated you? If you can't pick up the phone and get some answers from the company then who can. That level of disrespect and apathy towards one of their largest shareholders is completely unacceptable. I'd already be screaming for heads to roll if I were you.
Has there been a pattern of missteps along the way or is it a one-off thing? I think it been a long pattern of closed, inward thinking and a willingness to only deal within a small circle of support in all areas.
Are you happy with the company realizing some of its potential or would you like to see it reach its full potential? The only way that happens is a complete change in management philosophy and a willingness to accept responsibility for past mistakes and actually learn from it.
A couple board members need to go now.
SPCEO1 wrote: So Jeff's counsel to me is to vote two board members off to send a message - thanks for that feedback. Anyone else want to offer some advice? If this were to be effective, it would help to have some agreement on who those two board members should be, although we are all free agents here and can vote however we like. At this point I would guess Lacoste and Littlejohn would be the most likely for us to focus on if we went this direction, but feel free to make other suggestions. And please be aware, I am not even committing to voting anyone off the board at this point. I am just looking for the combined wisdom of the group knowing that I may well be sitting on the swing votes. There is a very good chance I will disappoint the most disgruntled shareholders with how I vote the shares I control but those of you wanting even stronger action than Jeff has suggested still have time to sway me.
I will be thinking about any ideas any of you would like to share and then I will let you know my final thoughts at some point prior to the annual meeting, long enough before it so that all can consider their own positions in light of the advice offered here and make their own choices while having sufficient time to get them mailed in so they will count. I do not recommend waiting until the actual meeting to vote as one never knows if the technology will work. Remember last year, the technology crashed and we did not even get to hear the speeches of the Chairwoman and CEO. So, don't count on that. Also, for English speakers, it is possible the AGM will be conducted completely in French, so that could make it difficult to know when it is appropriate to vote online or what the discussion was before the vote. Voting early by mail or online makes the most sense.
Ideally, none of that is even necessary and we can get it all sorted out in a friendly fashion soon. Wino seems like he would be a great person to speak with the company to discuss the best way forward but he has to want to do that too. And, obviosuly, no one would be required to follow whatever the result of his efforts were anyway - it would just be guidance for how we might want to vote based on whatever came of his/her discussions with management (I know nothing about Wino other than his/her nickname). And if Wino demurs, we will need another volunteer to step up, so lplease be thinking about that too. We should be able to resolve this amicably, but one never knows how people will react, or overreact, to situations like this.
jeffm34 wrote: No I don't have a legal background. I don't think a special meeting is needed right now. If we do in fact have the numbers to vote out 1 or 2 board members this go around that's all that's needed. Remove 2 board members and let it be known if credible changes aren't made quickly then a special meeting will be called with a full slate of new board members proposed. The board is responsible for executive compensation so if we show we have the ability to change the board, you can be sure changes will be made.
SPCEO1 wrote: Jeffm34 - I believe you were the one who posted some info about calling a special meeting at one point. Do you have some legal background or did you just work hard to dig that info up? If you are a legal type - do you anything about what might happen if you got your wish and shareholders voted many sitting board members off the board? I am assuming the remaining board members would be able to replace those who were voted off with new board members of their choosing and potentially no effective chage from our perspective. Or is there some other way for shareholders to have a bigger say in who those replacements might be?
jeffm34 wrote: Here's a small company from Alberta, Canada specializing in oncology. They don't have one of several thousand ex-vps from Pfizer sitting on their board. Their board chair is Wayne Pisano who is the former president and CEO of Sanofi Pasteur. TH refuses to look outside its small circle of friends for any help what so ever. Nothing will change with the stock performance until that mindset is completely erased from the company.