I never expected the company to announce a Rights Issue at this time, nor at this current share price, so accordingly I was surprised when the announcement was made - Naturally, one looks for reason:
1. Based on current cash burn rates, does the company need additional capital funding at anytime in the next two years? A: No they don't!
2. Based on current cash burn rates, does the company need additional capital funding at anytime in the next three years? A: Providing for company options exercisable in June 2013, Interest Rec'd, Customer Receipts and R&D Tax Offsets, the company would've had $4m in the bank by June 30, 2013, without raising any capital through a s/holder Rights Issue, so again the answer is, No they don't!
Imho, if management really wanted to raise some serious capital it would've, firstly promoted itself, as we see with ALL other spec companies before such events, and secondly it would've organised a placement via institutions and sophisticated investors and via a share purchase plan through its shareholders, not restrictive on a pro rata entitlement offer.
Further, and I am reluctant to add the following as it is only horses for courses, however some may even interpret the words in our Rights Issue announcement to confirm that the funds being raised will not be required or "applied" by the company before December 2014, but again, and I emphasize, each to their own...
"The funds raised by the Rights Issue Offer and Option Offer and the issue of shares 'upon' the exercise of Attaching New Options and Option Offer Options will be applied by the Company to advance its own products program"
... the issue of shares 'upon' the exercise of Attaching New Options...
Upon immediately or very soon after
"Attaching New Options issued under the Rights Issue Offer will be exercisable at $0.01 on or before 31 December 2014"
"The Option Offer Options will be exercisable at $0.01 on or before 31 December 2014 and will rank equally in all respects with the Attaching New Options issued under the Rights Issue Offer." ____________________
In closing, and seperate from all this Rights Issue talk, I just wanted to re-post an email response from Glyn kindly shared by Greenhouse on this thread since Glyn's return from OS - I hope for some it puts other unfounded and unsubstantiated gossip on this thread to rest...
From Greenhouse:
"Hello Glyn, here is a snippet that i copied refering to the initial Fmcg obj was dealing with,could you please tell me a little bit about the dealings or what has transpired regarding this? The FMCG you mentioned was the one initiating the third party Azopharma testing program which ultimately resulted in 3M joining the party. 3M has after testing told us they provide manufacturing expertises IF partner programs eventuate. The partner program which caused the involvement of that company has not progressed so far and it might be fair to say, probably never will. After waiting for 2 years after market assessment review the program got to be on hold. Being on hold is dead as much as partner has walked away which might not have transpired as much, but this is what we have to assume. According to internal graphs of management, that particular FMCG has not appeared anymore in recent updates. This FMCG represented our oldest overseas partner and I find it alarming that we did not succeed after 5 years back then, 7 years now with that collaboration."
Response from Glyn:
"We announced to the market initial dealings with 3M and an FMCG with whom we undertook the very successful testing using Azopharma as the agency. The two actions are entirely separate. All of the parties we are dealing with continue to be in contact and some are more active than others. Some partnering companies forge ahead before digesting results, some forge ahead regardless. There is no common thread so I would not be too concerned with your findings." ____________________
It is very important for OBJ holders to note as provided in this Post #: 9070812 a previous hc member who was relentless in his pursuit to cross promote another company on this forum, often disclosing that he held OBJ as will soon be clearly evidenced, in fact had already entered into commercial discussions with the company he was cross promoting during the same period, (based on the information provided below.) Both names of the alleged hc cross promoter and the company's joint CEO have been omitted by myself from the following abstract I have copied below to the above linked information:
"Around 4 years ago **** organised a group of Hotcopperites to go to Melbourne and get a briefing at Poh. As it went on during the day **** became very relaxed and the group came away with some wonderful insights. **** said **** emailed him the next morning and said he should contact **** directly at any time going forward as **** believed the company is owned by the shareholders...
**** apparently aware that **** was involved in the stockfeed and agriculture industry many months later emailed **** with some data about mastitis that POH had done research on years earlier asking **** if the data was of any value? As it has been told **** couldn’t believe the numbers associated with the reduction in acute mastitis and went back to **** and said , not only is the data valuable, if true it would be a massive commercial product if it could be replicated out of the lab and in the field..."
Around 4 years ago" one may assume we are probably talking around January/February 2009, so "many months later" one may fairly assume we are talking about 2010, or possibly even earlier, so, many of his posts here indicate a clear conflict of interest.
In fact the first post on this thread started by the same poster who it is now understood has a commercial undertaking with POH was moderated with the following comments back in February 2010:
"Lift your game, repost without the jibes and it can remain. If you make one more jibe like this you will be temporarily suspended. This isn't a forum for nasty ridiculing posts like this one."
The clear intention of this "highly regarded poster on the POH forum" and someone who has a "commercial agreement and undertaking" with the Melbourne company, was to install fear among current or potential investors to OBJ in suggesting that there was no existing arrangement in place with 3M, and that 3M had no further interest in OBJ's technology platforms. These accusations, or assumptions if you like, were completely fabricated and unfounded, and this was further confirmed when 3M permitted OBJ to announce that it remains a "Major Collaborator" to OBJ in 2011.
Now, I'm in no position to start making any serious allegations that this poster and others like him such as BioShareWoman have any existing formal agreements with another company to conjure up additional support via posting false information on other stock forums, as also can be witnessed here, however I do wish to advise all current and potential investors to take extreme caution in reading the posts under the disguise of these 'nom de plumes' - They have both clearly been posting with a second agenda at play, and imho it appears completely unprofessional on the company they both appear to be promoting.
OBJ Price at posting:
1.5¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)