You are living in la la land if you actually think Fortune 500 pharma companies would illegally short a potential target and their CEOs would risk going to jail to save what is a "few bucks" to them. No, it's not possible
Why are you cutting and pasting my posts from another thread heinrichgchaichian?
Should not take a year and run up to the point. Where BK has to me mentioned. That, is incompetency
Thanks, Bruce. And we did have our first board meeting that included Mike Fox this week. I think it was productive. So we're making progress. I appreciate that we are where you'd like us to be at, but we're -- we've begun the process.
Thanks Bruce for speaking on behalf of shareholders on the call. From Seeking Alpha
Our next question comes from the line of Bruce Schindler with Stockbridge.
I think that it's very interesting to hear about all these details. And as you know, we've been listening to details for quarter after quarter after quarter. I'm trying not to be negative, but what really gets me that certain board members, Mr. Tenwick, in particular, and certain directors that resigned, that after they've robbed the company year after year after year, they've resigned because they hear the foot beats coming or they're taking stock in lieu of cash, and what a wonderful thing they've done when they're raping the company at $100,000 a year in being an outside board member. And now, they're only going to take 50%, which is still too high. But they're going to take stock in lieu of, and their bet is at $5.80. But if you read all the proxies, in 3 years, Mr. Tenwick went from 200,000 and something shares, sold 800,000 at much lower prices and never exercised 1 share. So all I'm saying is let's not try to fool the shareholders who are on here, because I think a lot of the major shareholders understand. So this is a very weak stroke coming into the annual meeting. Now I'm very happy to hear about what the operating people are willing to do and someone's got some faith in the company. But I'm not impressed with the old inside board group, and we'll get to that at the meeting. It seems like we're going in the right direction, but we have -- we're like on the 10-yard line, and we got 90 yards to go. And I hope there's going to be a lot more things coming out from this new board, very positively, for the shareholders. And that's all I wish to say at this time, and I appreciate the efforts you're making.
Boyd P. Gentry - Chief Executive Officer, President, Director and Member o
I saw it and, again, sometimes I am ashamed to admit I am an attorney
First, they never said GIA is out. If they can't get a partner, they will GIA but will need to raise capital. If they can't do that, bankruptcy might be in the future. For everyone saying they are going the partnership route, no, all they said is the same thing they have said on every call this year, that they are in negotiations with potential partners. One of the two whopping analysts asked on the call about why it has taken almost a year to find a suitable partner. I do not think a good answer was given. That being said, I do not think Glaxo or SFE will let this company go under and I do expect they will sign a partner, on the parter's terms of course. It's NEVER good to be negotiating with someone whose money you need when the other party knows that your alternative may be bankruptcy. I think the stock is worth $3 or $4 so I added a few more after hours at $1.64.
In the new 8K for directors, CEO, COO and CFO. I like it. You guys want to make money, make it on the stock like shareholders have to by doing what needs to be done
Did I miss it or is there no mention of revenue in the press release for the first time in the history of press releases..only in the P&L at the bottom. Maybe cause they did 100K in sales when the estimate was about $1 million?
I replied on the SA board but looks like they didnot pput my post there...and, I was not abusive in any way. I hate SA..it is a plague. I often get auto replies from them after I post that my post violates terms of service when there was nothing objectionable and I see plenty of other posts they do put up that call the poster vulgar names. It's just a worthless use of cyberspace really
Any of you that take this article seriously are as clueless as the putz that wrote the article. I dislike JZ as much as anyone but the article is laughable. If he reduced his option compensation the company would be able to pay for the REDUCE-IT study? Do any of you actually think this is an accurate statement? Omniputz is so dumb he doesn't understand that option compensation is a noncash expense..it does not use ANY of the company's cash so cutting his option grants does nothing to help the company pay for anything. How can you take seriously an article by someone who is such a total dimwit?