Like I keep saying the CEO has to be pushed out...
We are working on this with a few other funds....We will get the right leader to focus on unlocking value in these assets. Tim and his team had their chance and have not delivered. A little patience here and we will get new leadership in....=)
Tim has indeed had his chance, and he's done quite well with it. Two approved drugs to market is no small achievement for a small-cap biotech just a couple of years from their IPO; for some the time between IPO and product launch is measured in decades, and some never get there at all. If you bought at the IPO price, you have my sympathies; the vast majority of my stake (46,000 shares at last count) was purchased well after the dilution last fall, so I'm not feeling a great sense of urgency here.
If, as you imply, you represent a consortium of institutional investors let me humbly suggest that you find a different line of work because clearly you (as a group, now, not necessarily as individuals) lack either the experience to invest successfully in small-cap Biopharm or the capacity for the performance of any reasonable level of due diligence. If (again, as a group) you have been reduced to rabble-rousing on a Yahoo message board I can only surmise that either your leverage on this issue is minimal (at best) or that the group that you imply that you belong to consists principally of you and the voices in your head.
Or else you're the Queen of England, in which case congratulations, ma'am, on the celebration of the 60th anniversary of your coronation.
You can say and do what you want but the idea of a management change at this point is absurd. The current CEO and his team are the ones who developed the drug and Famotidine had never even been approved by the FDA as an NSAID GI protective agent until the current team ran the trials and got approval. Walbert certainly has the experience in bringing a rheumatology drug to market with Humira. These drugs were a very tough sell initially for all the reasons the bears were going crazy shorting it and they needed to take on ugly debt. So now in a relatively short time the two main drugs got approved, the big offering in Sept took care of the threat of ugly debt bringing the company down and they aggressively expanded the sales force and got them selling in a way where the drugs are now selling very well. Rayos didn't even get fully launched until Jan and is just starting to get good traction. After realizing the drugs weren't initially selling well they took aggressive action and put the company on a solid footing. The other bear case was generic competition would kill the drugs and the company has aggressively and successfully beaten back generic competition by successfully getting several additional new patents and filing the proper suits with regulatory agencies. Have you heard anything lately about successful generic competition? So the company started from nothing recovered from a very tough start, got all the trials and regulatory and IP issues successfully done, just recently got a successful tripling of the price of lead drug Duexis and Rayos is gaining traction rather quickly from a low base. Now just what the heII would be accomplished by screwing all that up and putting some new management in?. So they can spend a long time figuring out what current management figured out and is now succeeding with? So like I said the idea is absurd at this point and can only seem to come from ignorance of the actual facts because with the facts it makes no sense.
Stock is trading at a 2 yr 52 wk low - are you happy with your investment. Look at other comparable biopharma companies performance just in the last few years. This has grossly underperformed someone needs to take the blame and it is usually the guy reporting to shareholders and running the company. I think a 2 yr track record of not creaing shareholder value is a failure on the part of Tim and the team....Plus it doesn't matter ehat you think as institutional investors will trump your retail opinion....