RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:A case for voting out Gary Littlejohn I have a very practical question. Let's accept the company went through a reset in 2019-20. Let's say for the past 12 months they've been engaging with markets with an offering in the back of their mind. They picked up 4 institutions. Of course the price tag matters, of course what you have to sell matters, but is that a reasonable outcome from 12 months work? If you assume they were starting from a very poor baseline. Another assumption of mine is that for different reasons both R&D programs aren't/weren't ideal programs to sell. I have no experience in this area so I'm just looking for others with experience of these types of processes.
palinc2000 wrote: Since they seem to be willing to add another Board member with the skillsets required for capital markets for the US and Canadian markets then why not make it easier for them by voting Gary out,,? Why add to the number od Directors?
qwerty22 wrote: Personally I don't want to send any more messages. I think this process was the message, it seems to me they took it seriously. I don't think there is any alternative but to allow them to execute their strategy. Seems to me they aren't playing games, they are serious people.
stockman75 wrote: Agree...In addition I think it holds the entire board accountable by sending a message. If you don't have significant money at risk and your interest is just marginally aligned then the long term share holders will help find a board that is 110% aligned and fully competent in all areas. Nothing personal just pragmatic business decision. Board has done a fantastic job on many fronts but some of the slight of hand on the share offering and pummeling long term holders is not acceptable.