Ann: Unilife Placement and SPP , page-33

Work for the company? Careful what you say, xfire. Very easy to stray into defamatory territory with comments like that, and I'm sure you nor HC would want to go there. Fact is, after years of battling those on this thread who did everything they could, (and still do), to undermine Alan Shortall and the company, I chose a more positive outlook, as so eloquently expressed earlier today by Snork69.

I still do, and make no apology for that. People are entitled to their short-term opinions. I don't share them. I do not care one toss about the options or the SPP price or dilution. As I said yesterday, where I believe Unilife is going in the medium to longer term, the benefits of this placement/SPP far outweigh any very short term disadvantage some may think they are suffering now.

As for the options, not to bore you with repetition, but the announcement states the company was able to select investors who share the company's long term aspirations. Do you really think institutions/professional investors who are lining up to put their money on the table need a sweetener to do so? This was no cap-in-hand funding exercise. Instead of viewing it as a bribe to get them to participate, why not view it as I said - as a means of (potentially) locking in further funds when required? And before you say, how do we know they WILL be exercised, if you had millions of options in the money, wouldn't you? And yes, of course that assumes they will be in the money, but the way this is going it's a hard to think they won't be.

BTW I did not comment on negotiating with the institutions from a position of strength. That comment was (again as stated) directed to dealing with other major pharma re the RTFS, about which we are expecting an announcement early in the new year concerning a further licensing deal(s).

Granted, I may have got a little excited about the SPP not being scaled back, but then again, the announcement explicitly states that the company has left itself the discretionary option to take subscriptions over and above $10 million. Why would they do that, if they didn't intend to, or at least give themselves the option?

I respect your often negative critical opinions, xfire. How about you respect my positive ones? Then maybe we will find a balance somewhere in the middle without having to resort to the type of unpleasant accusations you have just used to impune my motives and character?