Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form , page-94

re: Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Pro... Hi maka,

"...but everything you portray relies on coincidences and relationships and previous personal contacts whereas the information Glyn portrays when specifically asked seems to contradict your conclusions. Why could Glyn for example specifically state that they are NOT looking to produce pain products on their own in contrast to what the announcement implied over a year ago."

I'm having one of those strange days today, so I just wanted to confirm that the "example' you provide is related to the former statement, re my conclusions being contradictory to information coming from Glyn?

It goes without saying of course that we can rely on the authenticity of information coming from the company over the views and opinions expressed by others like myself, but if you can give me an example, I may be able to substantiate further to show what formed the basis of a contradictory conclusion to that which has been provided by the company.

Hi MG,

"I reckon it might be worthwhile for us to sort out how your theories square with this info:"

Yep, I'm definitely having a strange day mate. You're not mistaking "my theories" for where I have quoted the company, are you - I only posted questions in my last post to you, and the grey text represents abstracts taken directly from company announcements, and P&G interview transcripts?

You say:
"OBJ said that in-house project is a way to be less reliant on partners' timing"

Yes, I understand this, commercial flexibility...

OBJ say:
"OBJ’s primary strategy of engaging targeted potential licensees for the technology has and remains a principal route to commercialisation of the technologies via licensing-style agreements. We remain confident that this offers OBJ the least cost development and distribution path to market.

There are a number of stages that any licensing arrangement must pass through that would enable a targeted partnering company to adopt the OBJ technology as a preferred drug delivery alternative. This includes undergoing its own internal testing program, its own product marketing development program, a technical and manufacturing development process and final manufacture and distribution. This process can often be measured in years and the timelines are very much controlled by the partnering company. In order that this process can be better streamlined, OBJ has taken the decision to undertake some of the preliminary testing (in vitro and in vivo) internally and provide the results to the targeted companies with which OBJ intends partnering."

"In 2010, the Company announced its intentions to develop value-added and market ready products utilising its own proprietary technologies for distribution either directly or through channel partners.

The Company’s established partnering relationships with international FMCG, pharmaceutical and cosmetic partners will continue unaffected and will remain a core aspect of the Company’s commercial plans."

You say:
2 - "If OBJ expects a deal with a big partner, it would cover the cost of the in-house without a CR, so why make provisions for a CR if a deal is due soon?"

No one can fault a preparatory action, but I would still encourage you to grab a calculator, and give a little more thought to what you might be thinking. Raise a little bit of lunch money, and deplete cash resources without any idea of when/if big brother will come to the party... and how were we going to fund these internal development programs again?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point, MG. In my view you might be suggesting here that the company risk committing corporate suicide. Cash is King in the Biotech sector, so if the board felt that there was no material deal on the near term horizon would it not be more responsible of them to pull the reigns in on all internal development expenditure, and reduce cash burn until such time as there was some light at the end of the tunnel?

Another point worth considering is that global giants like GSK and P&G are truly massive corporations, and the deal negotiation processes with companies of this magnitude would be slow and protracted. Liquidia Technologies announced its licensing deal with GSK over 4 months ago, and to my understanding they are still awaiting upfront payment.

According to the agreement, Liquidia will receive an upfront payment, comprised of cash and equity, R&D funding, as well as potential for additional licensing fees, development milestones, and royalties. Upfront payment, R&D funding, licensing, and development and regulatory milestone payments under this collaboration could total up to several hundred million dollars upon all contingent payments coming due. Through this agreement, Liquidia has also retained the ability to independently develop certain respiratory and vaccine products in addition to using the PRINT platform to develop products in other therapeutic areas. “I am looking forward to Liquidia and GSK scientists working together to explore the potential of Liquidia's technology platform to our discovery and development portfolio," said John Baldoni, Senior Vice President Platform Technology & Science, GSK.
GSK also has acquired an undisclosed minority stake in Liquidia

3 "When asked to confirm or deny PNO, Glyn declined, yet Palermo bought lots of shares in both companies simultaneously - seems something strange is going on there."

If you were to ask management to confirm or deny a partnership with McDonald's, I reckon they'd be quite upfront in denying any partnership exists, however if you were to ask management to confirm or deny a partnership with Olay, I reckon they would decline to answer - Make of that what you will.

4 When asked about a CR for the patch, Glyn said all options were being considered.

I think we are just going around in circles now, MG, because you avoided all of the previous questions posted, which you may note has already made #4. null and void.

The essential point I'm trying to make here is that I simply do not believe for one second, nor do I see any logical sense whatsoever for the company to be planning a successful execution of an additional 25% issue causing significant s/holder dilution at an absolutely absurd sp, when the previous 15% issue on the back of two significant announcements with unanimous 99% s/holder support still failed miserably. It's simply not going to happen under these current conditions, MG - And I'm just stating the facts.

My second point being made was that the board will probably be quite aware that something significant needs to happen within the next 26 days. I would also propose that it may need to have a very positive effect on our sp too, because firstly there's no fun in directors having to face grumpy s/holders at the AGM, and secondly, or perhaps most importantly the board requires a minimum 75% support from those grumpy s/holders to pass resolution 3 for the additional placement shares.

From my previous post:
The total number of shares taken up via the last entitlement issue in 2009 was only 74m, or 69% 'after' both the resolution for approval of that placement was passed with 99.98% of the vote, and 'after' two significant announcements had already been made to the market, being those that were announced to the market on October 01, 2009 and November 04, 2009.

Importantly, the share price of OBJ at the time of the General Meeting notice received back in June 2009 to pass that resolution was only $0.005c.

In December 2009 the company announced a non-renounceable Rights Issue at a price of $0.023c cents per share. This represented a + 360.00% increase in sp from the date of the 2009 notice to pass that resolution. To put this in context to receipt of last Friday's notice this would be the same as OBJ doing it's next entitlement issue sometime over the next 6 months @ $0.047c per share.