Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

A case for voting out Gary Littlejohn

[jeffm34]

Gary is supposed to be the capital market guy on the board but it appears to be mainly Canadian capital market experience. If plan A fell through on the recent financing and they had to come up with plan B, that's where Gary's expertise should have come in to play.  Safe to say plan B was less than ideal.  I would suggest voting against Gary with the expectation that he would be replaced by someone with more capital market experience, in particular US capital markets.

[houbahop]

In all cases, it simply resumes to one factor going into the proxy vote. If you feel, after this interaction with Theratechnologies' management, they are simply trying to buy time to keep the Board intact for 2021-22, VS having a proactive action plan to deal with the issues concerning aligning their interests with shareholders, YOU BETTER VOTE ACCORDINGLY AND SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE

[stockman75]

Thanks Jeff.

[retiredRIA]

As of now, I am going to vote my shares (& others who vote how I vote), for all BOD except Gary Littlejohn.  We need someone who has more influence and connection in the US.   I expect about 500K to 750K shares to vote this way, unless I become convinced otherwise.  I have no connection with THTX so easy for me to at least let THTX know we need greater influence and

[stockman75]

Same here. only measly 100K shares but I have the same sentiment. 

[longterm56]

I like this idea and will probably do likewise.  Voting Littlejohn off the board will not impact "the team" very much at all and hopefully will be received as a wake-up call to make things happen.    -LT

[jeffm34]

I will be doing the same and only voting against Littlejohn. 

[retiredRIA]

It appears from his BIO that Gary Littlejohn has minimal contact with US firms and his pultry number of THTX shares shows he doesn't have EITHER the passion or contacts to attract US buyers.  We know there are not enough of us to vote Gary off but we will "send a message" to both Gary and management that we are expecting more from a board member put in this slot.

[CreatingApe]

I am sure plan B didn't bother him too much. Since he owns basically no shares of the company. I am sure he's proud of himself. Raising all of this "free money" for the company... from our pockets. Seems like a no brainer, Littlejohn should go. It would not be seen as hostile (Mr Spceo!) Just savy investors protecting themselves. And sending a simple message to the rest of the

[stockman75]

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

[qwerty22]

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.  

[palinc2000]

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?

[jeffm34]

Agree totally. Extra board members means extra expense and additional share options given out.

[muslix1]

Like the US supreme court NO paking... i vote for Paul and Dawn .. out for the rest of bunch time to clean

[qwerty22]

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

[scarlet1967]

Well a friendly advise don't ask your questions in our weekly investor webcasts cause you are not alone not having experience...

[palinc2000]

I am particularly perturbed by the fact that they had to go to Plan B because there were technicalities preventing Plan A ,,,,,This would eliminate lack of interest ,,,,,,,How can a technicality issue not be fixable?

[scarlet1967]

Well the company has two highly skilled accountants so it must have been  absolutely impossible technical issues to go with plan B!! as for lack of interest I suspect it might have been some interest to close that deal question is the deal served whoes interest? Anothet question is whether those skilled accountants and folks who approved the deal woukd choose to close a much bigger deal

[qwerty22]

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

[qwerty22]

I didn't mean downplayed, I meant underestimated.

[SPCEO1]

The 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

[scarlet1967]

To “reset” they need folks who are capable of “resetting” the company or folks like the one below, I don’t think the issue is an underestimation of the challenge (transition from commercial to an R&D company) but overestimation of the current leadership’s ability to deal with the challenge.   “Paul Lvesque has built an enviable reputation in the pharmaceutical industry both here and

[jeffm34]

I agree with your reasoning but the thing we have to decide is if they have the right team in place to execute fully on that plan. Based on success so far you'd have to say no.