RE:Well said Ciaofossi_2002 wrote:
Ciao, you are absolutely right with your analysis.
That Gilles is not ashamed to propose this exchange to Ceapro's shareholders.
I really wonder what kind of conscience such a manager must have.
The fact that Ronnie also comments on this positively with a "thrilled" is outrageous.
I have the feeling that the shareholders have fallen victim to the robbers.
Let's consider what if this was a non-arms length deal? Would CZO shareholders be appalled given that this would be a sellout of all that CZO has done with PGX at below liquidation value. With phase 1/2a results due in Sept to which Gilles says if positive we would partner with biopharma (I sure hope he didn't mean AEZS, but that wouldn't surprise me now). To merge with a high risk cash burning biopharma whereas we were a "de-risked" company with a base business with PGX to enter into $B industries makes no sense for CZO shareholders.
Now this is an arms length deal with an obvious management bias. AEZS with a strong record of shareholder value destruction trading at a discount to cash says it all. They continually need access to capital and treasure their NASDAQ listing. There is a cycle of dilution and share rollbacks. AEZS wil use CZO to tout PGX so they can raise funds.
As per Q3 CZO earnings report, that was out 2 weeks before the merger proposal, CZO was well funded to carry out it's pipeline. It needed a bit of effort to sign up partners for commercial development of PGX would give them capital. We heard Gilles state that interested parties wanted to license complete applications of PGX by industry. We have options in the hands of a capable CEO. We don't need our shares diluted or interests in PGX diluted in a merger. Those who bought into CZO in the early days will never recover their original worth if this dilution goes through. The $B potential markets that PGX could serve needs to stay within the group of loyal shareholders. Vote NO to this SHAM merger and get a CEO who won't sellout CZO in an arms lenght deal.