RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:A case for voting out Gary LittlejohnThe offering was an extemely bad one, especially considering the specualtive market environment where all sorts of things were getting funded on good terms. The environment they entered when doing the deal could not have been better, yet they still did a bad deal. Now, I will acknowledge that the set-up was still a bit questionable and had just been sorted out when the deal was announced (with both letters for the studies in cancer and NASH to proceed). But they failed to lt the market soak that info in before proceeding because I suspect they were concerned the market was on the verge of crashing and the chance to raise money would be lost. Instead, had they weighted even 30 days, the market did not crash and they would also have had the very unusual pre-clinical Fast Track cancer designation to highlight in their offering. I am sure the stock price could have been significantly higher had they marketed that well.
So, they really screwed that up in what were ideal circumstances to do an offering. Most of the issue was not selling their story e ffectively in the run-up to the deal but they can be given at least a partial pass on that as the story was coming together rather quickly and drammatically, particularly with their high stakes genenral NASH gambit, in the months leading up to the deal
Since we have been collecctively hammering them about this for the past four months, we know they are very much aware of our unusually high level of concern about the leadership's decisions in this and other matters that might help the share price. And they are acting on those concerns as we know from Wino's interaction with Paul and Dawn. That is clearly a positive.
I have set Wednesday as the day when I will make my final determination as to how I will vote my client's shares. Despite my constant complaining here, don't be surprised if I decide to vote in favor of all of the board nominees. But if I do, it will be through clenched teeth. Anyone who decides to vote against one or more board members is certainly justified in taking that action. The continued loss of good connections with the investment community, the OO, the Q1 sales and conference call fiasco and management assertions that the company would never do a low priced offering all easily justify taking a negative view of the situation. The rapid, very low cost turnaround from the poor commercialization effort of Trogarzo into a company with two really promising drugs in huge markets is the postive side of the equation. I may still be one of those who votes against one or more board members, but it is a high bar for me to jump as voting against any management team at any time puts me well out of my comfort zone.
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.