RE: Re: Certain vendors, answers, answers,.....confusedass
i don't know where you get your "facts", but you might want to double check them next time. hint you might try the prospectus (i know its probably too long to read and difficult for you to understand but thats no excuse for not trying)
fiction
ONC incorporated April 8, 1999
FACT
The Corporation was incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the ABCA on April 2, 1998 as 779738 Alberta Ltd. On April 8, 1998, the Corporation amended its articles and changed its name to Oncolytics Biotech Inc.
fiction
Share capital on December 31, 1999, $81, (yep, eighty-one dollars, Canadian), 2,222,222 shares outstanding.
FACT (from the 1999 financial statement on onc's own website
Shareholders' equity
Share capital [note 9] 5,002,182 4
Contributed surplus [note 2] 2,500,000 —
Deficit (574,462) —
NET SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY 6,927,720
Balance, December 31, 1999 13,669,997 shares
here are some more facts for you to consider
Patent and Patent Application Summary
The following table sets forth a summary of the Corporation's current published patent application:
Title
PCT.CA 98/00774
Reovirus for the
Treatment of Neoplasia
Ownership
Oncolytics Biotech Inc.
Inventors
Dr. Patrick W.K. Lee
Dr. James E. Strong
Dr. Matthew C. Coffey
Status of Patent
Filed August 12, 1998
Pending
The Corporation acquired the interest in the patent application on December 1, 1998 from, Dr. Patrick W.K. Lee, Dr. Matthew C. Coffey, Dr. James E. Strong and University Technologies International Inc. in exchange for the issuance of 2,145,298 Common Shares.
This patent was granted in Feb. 2002 – triggering the 3rd milestone payment.
so in summary,
lee, coffey, strong & uti got 2M onc shares of onc in 1998 in return for the pending patent, which after it was granted in 2002, they got (along with thompson) a $1M milestone payment, after having gotten the first two $1M milestone payments earlier.
on top of that, their salaries, bonuses and royalty, they also got stock options
"The board of directors of the Corporation approved a stock option plan under which options to purchase shares in the Corporation may be granted to the directors, officers and employees. Stock options will be exercised at a price to be fixed by the board of directors and shall expire five years after being granted, although such maximum term may be extended to ten years after the date of grant.
On October 28, 1999, stock options were granted to acquire 1,208,750 common shares at a price of $0.85 per share and expiring on November 8, 2004."
is that fair compensation?
well, to me its only fair if they work as hard for people who put their own money into buying onc shares (so onc could afford to pay for the additional patents, studies & trials, not to mention the milestone payments).
as someone pointed out previously, the problem facing onc shareholders who used their own money to get a stake in onc, is that management, namely coffey & thompson, may have more to gain from the royalty than they do from an increase in onc share price, the higher the royalty rate is.
in fact all along, they have been rewarded handsomely for their efforts while bearing, little if any financial risk.- i don't begrudge them that, coffey at least was directly involved with the reolysin discovery but now they have a fiduciary responsibility to do what is right and fair for shareholders who bought onc shares with their own money.
i don't know if i want these guys milking the cow after they've made a partnership/royalty deal, especially if they start exercising those options and dumping their shares. does the tth deal become clearer now? - it was a sweetheart deal that didn't even give tth what it needed most - cash, but their major shareholders certainly were able to trade their illiquid stock for some nice tradeable onc shares.
the only thing besides the law that forces these guys' motivations to be aligned with shareholders are their onc shares and if they start cashing them in on announcement of a partnership, that will be a clear signal to bail out of this puppy for all its worth.
wonder if all those knowledgeable experts out there clamouring for a 30-50% royalty think about such a conflict of interest?