Good evening @theoc.
While my invitation for correction had been extended to @ClaireMD in case I had misinterpreted “her” question to @adreamer, I'm happy to respond to you, too.
Far from me “supposing” anything about this group of dissident shareholders, I know full well that this group does exist and, for the most part, who is involved and much of what has occurred. Indeed, I would be surprised if you knew the full extent of what some of these shareholders have been up to.
To set the record straight and correct what could otherwise be misunderstood by some readers to be mischievous twistings of my prior comments, let me make clear that I take no issue with critical discussion and debate or the asking of reasonable questions regarding the performance of the company vis communications, marketing, accuracy and timing of information, etc. – all fair game when the opinions presented and questions asked are sensible and based in fact and reason. I’ve previously taken issue with the company’s performance in these regards myself.
Let me also dismiss the suggestion that I am asserting “…thatpointing this out and asking management for clarification is wrong orside-mouthed scuttlebutt…” or that “…Making suggestions or askingpointed question to and of a BoD (constitutes) wrongful intent.”
What I do regard to be “wrong or side-mouthed scuttlebutt” and actions of “wrongful intent” is illustrated in some recent posts from these SH that variously imply:
- The company is failing to meet its continuous disclosure obligations.
- Directors have engaged in some kind of insider trading.
- SH are being misled or lied to in relation to a wide range of topics.
(I had thought to include hyperlinks to some of the more instructive posts that show what I’m talking about, but to do that would tend to identify those involved.)
I could go on, but I have no doubt that you know exactly the sorts of comments I’m talking about – if not, just scroll up a ways and check a few of the other threads from the past fortnight. They're really not that hard to find.
As I have stated previously, what I’ve found most egregious in relation to the behaviour of some SH associated with this group has been:
- Members of this group contacting other companies and research bodies under the pretext of representing PharmAust when they do not.
- Members of the group “assault-dialling” directors to verbally abuse them at all hours of the day and night.
- The constant inference that these SH know better how to navigate the conduct of clinical trials and regulatory approvals while lacking any relevant experience or credentials.
- Persistent allegations that SH are being misled or lied to.
I perked up on this topic again today because, as has occurred prior, the forum was becoming polluted with unfounded and wrongheaded suggestions that the company had failed to fulfil its continuous disclosure obligations.
In this instance, the suggestion was that material information had been withheld, or its release to the market delayed, by the company in relation to the very good research article published in the Cancer Medicine journal. This assertion (it appears to me) was followed up with suggestions, by way of question, that the “withheld information” may have been provided in advance to the 708 investors as part of the recent capital raise. This sort of "stacks on" behaviour is pretty typical of the group when they have a barrow to push.
I guess the most disappointing aspect of all of this is that some SH appear to have adopted as their default position that the company is, in various ways, up to no good. If you're in to those sorts of conspiracy theories then you have my sympaties, but I would ask those involved to please refrain from spreading them on HC.
As you have pointed out, there’s nothing wrong with asking questions of the company – but there’s a right way to do this that does not include the making of potentially defamatory comments in public forums, diliberately seeding discontent, propagating conspiracies or lacing questions with toxic assertions.
Cheers
Densy
(20min delay)