The dawn of a new SUDA, page-12

Hi Buckland

A comment to some of your comments:

"giving away around 50% of the company"
We dont know the terms of the payment of shares and cash to the City of Hope. The equity and/or portion could have been based on milestones reached for the Phase 1 trial which all else equal would have been at a far greater market cap than what currently exists. I have seen this many times before.
So to say that we were giving away 50% of the company is factually incorrect.

"putting them $10m in debt"
Yes you are correct. There was to be a $10m liability on the balance sheet. But dont forget the other side of the balance sheet, ie the asset side. It has the potential to be significantly more than what the cost was proposed to be. Thats why the management team went down this path.

"they couldn't get the deal past the ASX was just the fact it wasn't in the best interests of shareholders"
It is typically up to shareholders to determine what is in their interests, not the ASX. This deal was subject to shareholder approval.
However it is clear the ASX intervened which I still find to be beyond the scope of their mandate.

"the fact that Hopper changed the TGA submission and failed to report this, tells you he cares nothing about shareholders"
I actually think that changing the submission and improving the manufacturing of the product is in best interests of shareholders.

A final comment...

I think the proposed acquisition would have led to a significant increase in the share price. This would have enabled the company to raise not only the $10m they needed to pay City of Hope, but also to fund the ongoing development work for its current product range and JV partnerships. It would have been a win-win.

As I posted yesterday I believe this is the strategy of the new management team and I am supportive of this.

It is a different strategy compared to previous management and therefore may not be for everyone.

But I think that over time you will see it be a fruitful one for your investment.