I'm not interested in Dr. Patterson being the CEO.

I'm not interested in Dr. Patterson being the CEO. And from what I know, that is now what he wants either. I am trying to wait for them to put some info out before I speculate too much, but the impression that I got was that they want to bring Dr. Patterson in as the CMO.

You educated me last week that only the board can nominate CEO and CMO, so I would assume they are trying to get board seats so as to be able to nominate alternate individuals for these positions.

Without knowing anything else, if I were asked to choose between Scott Kelley as CMO, or Dr. Patterson, I think thats a pretty easy choice. But at what cost?

The issue, in my eyes, is that if they have enough board seats to nominate Dr. Patterson they also have enough seats to nominate new people for other positions, as well as enough seats to make decisions about the companies future.

Herein lies the rub. How do we know they will act in our best interests? How do we know the new nominees for other positions will in fact be better than our current management?

Lots of questions that they will need to answer in order to have a shot at winning. Right now it seems that the odds are against them. (just my opinion)