for the stem-cell deal with BioTime? The deal is dependent on approval by BioTime shareholders; but, no Geron shareholder approval is sought! The stem-cell portfolio was acquired using Geron shareholder funding. Also, the acquisition of the portfolio required hundreds of millions of shareholder-invested money, which is being sold to BioTime for less than $15M (equivalent at current price levels). Therefore, we as Geron shareholders also must have a (I would say, constitutional) right to approve or disapprove the deal.
There is 0 real debt in Geron and the HESC was more than 25% of the company so the answer would most likely be yes Shareholders could litigate the issue since it could be seen as giving away shareholder assets by management and at a detriment to shareholders. There is president in deleware for such litigation but it is not clear as to who would prevail. I would rate it about 60% for the shareholders and 40% for management. There would be a cost to the company in the litigation.
I see nothing wrong with that. Considering that % Held by Insiders is 1.66% those held by Institutions is 28.10% there would be a chance that a retail negative vote would possibly prevail. However many retail investors, like myself believe the drive to a phase III stem cell trial and a manufactured product would have bankrupted Geron. The European ban on stem cell products also was a possible factor in the decision. So personally, I would rather have Geron sell the hESC assets and distribute the Series A BAC Common Stock to Geron's stockholders and also Keep my shares of Geron.
You seem to encourage all to sell their Geron and buy ACTC but looking at % Held by ACTC Insider is 2.21%, % Held by Institutions: (none reported), and coupled with a history of large dilution, and a 7 cent PPS , I think that would be equivalent to economic suicide.
nom, no matter what the situation for hESCs is, isn't it unfair for the Geron management to ignore shareholders when BioTime does exactly opposite? This is not the first time Geron management has ignored what the shareholders want, it has beciome its practice and we, shareholders have been actionless!! How long? Don't we have a right? Are we naive or gutless? To say that the arangement with BTX is the best deal without us knowing what those " many interested parties" had to offer us, as they had been telling us in several CCs, is a cop out. As I posted on this board months back, and Taz knows that, I had written to the manangement warning it not to dispose of the assets cheap, to which it acknoledged the receipt through a querry from Anna, I certainly feel insulted and ignored as a representative shareholder. I think we must exercise our power and rights as shareholders, notwithstanding the merits of the deal. It is apparently in violation of SEC regulations because it is not in the best interest of shareholders. How many of you can agree to that? I think I am going to ask SEC to give its opinion about this.