Yes, no kissing Gerald's butt, but respectful and
Post# of 30066
Posted On: 09/14/2014 1:40:35 AM
Re: Daveludlow #6292
Yes, no kissing Gerald's butt, but respectful and ernest questions such as:
1. Can you tell us of partnership agreements that are in the works, and when can we expect those to be publicly announced, and how much are we getting up front in those partnerships?
2. Can you give us guidance on when we will sell Lympro and Eltoprazine to a big pharma, and for how much?
3. When can we expect the company to be profitable? You don't have to tell us about revenue from partnerships or diagnostic asset sales that are planned or already in the works, but when can we expect those transactions to generate a profit for shareholders?
(and from the April 2013 conference call)
4. Where do you see the share price being in, say, December?
All legitimate, respectful questions for a concerned shareholder to ask, correct?
How about these (asked after the AS increase is voted down):
5. How are you planning to protect us from the current hostile takeover attempt by (insert any big pharma here)? By God, we demand answers. You had better have a strategy in place to protect the shareholders. What the hell has management been doing all this time?
6. Why have you delayed the spinoff of the diagnostics division? Management's past comments have led us to this expectation. Now you're backing off? How is that fair? We demand you follow through on your promises.
Then Gerald responds to the shareholder:
"We explained to shareholders we needed the increase in AS to accomplish those goals. Insiders voted FOR these proposals. Shareholders voted AGAINST them. Sorry, but the diagnostics spinoff is no longer an option for the foreseeable future. The preparations we were making that involved a bidding war among several big pharma companies and would have resulted in a huge windfall for investors is now off the table. Also, since we have no defense against the current takeover attempt, our board has reluctantly accepted the buyout offer at far lower value than we believe the company could have been worth had management not been second guessed by shareholders on every decision."
Which of those would be considered valid, respectful questions from concerned shareholders?
I don't mean to call you fat on a public board, but the fact is you are fat (by your own admission) and I'm concerned you're not doing anything about it. Sounds about the same thing as saying you don't mean to trash the company on a public board, but then you do it.
1. Can you tell us of partnership agreements that are in the works, and when can we expect those to be publicly announced, and how much are we getting up front in those partnerships?
2. Can you give us guidance on when we will sell Lympro and Eltoprazine to a big pharma, and for how much?
3. When can we expect the company to be profitable? You don't have to tell us about revenue from partnerships or diagnostic asset sales that are planned or already in the works, but when can we expect those transactions to generate a profit for shareholders?
(and from the April 2013 conference call)
4. Where do you see the share price being in, say, December?
All legitimate, respectful questions for a concerned shareholder to ask, correct?
How about these (asked after the AS increase is voted down):
5. How are you planning to protect us from the current hostile takeover attempt by (insert any big pharma here)? By God, we demand answers. You had better have a strategy in place to protect the shareholders. What the hell has management been doing all this time?
6. Why have you delayed the spinoff of the diagnostics division? Management's past comments have led us to this expectation. Now you're backing off? How is that fair? We demand you follow through on your promises.
Then Gerald responds to the shareholder:
"We explained to shareholders we needed the increase in AS to accomplish those goals. Insiders voted FOR these proposals. Shareholders voted AGAINST them. Sorry, but the diagnostics spinoff is no longer an option for the foreseeable future. The preparations we were making that involved a bidding war among several big pharma companies and would have resulted in a huge windfall for investors is now off the table. Also, since we have no defense against the current takeover attempt, our board has reluctantly accepted the buyout offer at far lower value than we believe the company could have been worth had management not been second guessed by shareholders on every decision."
Which of those would be considered valid, respectful questions from concerned shareholders?
I don't mean to call you fat on a public board, but the fact is you are fat (by your own admission) and I'm concerned you're not doing anything about it. Sounds about the same thing as saying you don't mean to trash the company on a public board, but then you do it.
(0)
(0)