Ann: USA launch of evolis-CDY.AX, page-53

Why were the first 3 posts today removed? No breach of HC post rules. So why?

Anyway Dentie, the contrary view is always appreciated. There were however some serious holes in the reason applied in your response, you've now reposted. Example: you saying the directors don't control the sp. yep true. The sun rises in the east. But that fact is not relevant to the debate. The board has a duty to add value for SHs and act in their best interest though.

That duty is not discharged by the Board issuing PP shares at 3.0c days after the directors were encouraging option holders to convert at 3.4c and strongly telling us the shares were undervalued. Hasn't the board shamefully issued undervalued shares (on their definition) at less than oppy holders were enticed to convert at? Yet you rationalise that is OK under corporate governance standards, or any standard of fairness, wow!

Pharma's flawed rationale of, oh but the difference was only 4/10ths of a cent, is breathtaking also. That the option holders were short changed by the significant 11.76% difference in favour of the PP is the complaint. It is not valid to attempt to justify it in any other obscure view.

If the PP at fair value could not have been concluded then it should not have been done at all, and yes even if the US launch had to be deferred; particularly in view of the directors concurrently luring holders to convert with no disclosure that if insufficient mugs converted at the "undervalued" 3.4c the board was ready to explore a PP at a lesser price, even 3.0c! "good commercial planning" you say to short change loyal option holders.

Was it also good commerce to risk winging it so far into the US launch with the funding from it contingent on assumed success of the options take up? Even though that hoped for success was improbable and so madness to move on the US with insufficient money given the sp for months before conversion was below the 3.4c exercise price. The PP purpose was announced as in part to fund the US launch. It was the case then, as posts today acknowledge, a panic last minute PP to pull the launch back from the brink.

Is this good capital management to embark on a US launch, risky in itself, without assured funding? It is NOT the commercially responsible way to launch into the US; it is a wing and a prayer launch . Oh, hang on ...we do have a director appointed in 2015 with expertise in corporate finance we are assured in the 2016 Annual Report.

So it must be fine then to have a last minute panic PP with an ASX suspension at a sp below what fellow SHs were enticed to pay days before, else the US launch, supposedly well planned for months, yet without the money for it, have been aborted. Give us a break.

Isn't Pharma and Dentie rallying behind a board as questionable as we have (as evidenced above) in no small part a factor behind why we have the directors we have and in turn why the debacle occurred? I look forward to seeing Dentie stand up at the AGM and congratulate the Board on its options/PP genius.

What does this Board have to do wrong to lose your support or or even to question the veracity of stuff like this? Perhaps loss of confidence is a reason why the informed and rational posters who used to contribute valuably to our knowledge on this stock have departed since the options/PP shambles.