eip, page-4

I think I will choose to vote NO for the deal.

This deal is actually in the best interest of those retiring management people. They can get exit with great bonuses.

Replacing PC with a more capable CEO is the most paramount thing that Biota needs at the moment.

Biota still has around $50m cash and royalties from Relenza and Inavir.

We can wait for one more year to wait for better opportunities. Or, Biota can do a cap raising in ASX. For example, using rights issue to existing shareholders to raise $50m by issuing 182m new shares at 27.5 cents.

But, If the management can not attract licensees for its HRV, RSV and other programs, why should shareholders put more money into those programs?

Before this,most of us got the impression from the annual reports that Biota had got adequate cash reserve and did not need any cap raising in the follow few years. But now the management effectively carry out a cap raising. When the share price was $1, the management told in the annual report that they believe theBiota was not properly valued.

I do not trust the management saying that the IPO in the Nasdaq will cost more than $20m, unless the IPO is accompanied by a large sized cap raising. Also, the management also seems to exacerbate the cost and inconvenience of dual listing Biota.

I believe that today's situation that Biota is facing has been planned for by the management and other parties a few years ago. Returning the $20m cash to shareholders, taking over the two companies, expanding into new programs, no licensing deals done, and refusing to improve PR are all the major contributors to the current situation facing Biota.

The public company structure and the governing rules are flawed, giving those crapy executives the room to thrive. For example, those crapy executives are cover by the Insurance policies taken out for them by the companies, which the shareholders pay for them.

my opinions only.