RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:A case for voting out Gary Littlejohn A lot of the Life Sci blurb talks about shareholder relationship building as a long term process.Again from a practical perspective, two years ago they were a commercial niche HIV company, now they are transforming into an R&D company. Not only are the pre-existing shareholders going to be questioning whether this new look company is the right fit for them but presumably all the relationships you've been trying to nurture will be thrown off by this switch too. As well as being hit by the failure to execute on sales. So the idea of the reset as something starting from close to zero seems like a good one.
Spceo you called this company reset from commercial to R&D super early and outlined the opportunities it brought pretty well. Do you think we (or the company) downplayed the challenges it would bring as well?
qwerty22 wrote:
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.