Ann: Ceasing to be a substantial holder from MS, page-23

Great post gg99rush,

Many readers, posters and holders will assess their investment in VLA and decide how they will vote - ignoring the scare tactics on HC. I don't agree with the premise that if $1.75 has been offered, it automatically follows - $1.75 must be fair market value. For what it's worth, I will be voting against the deal. I will add that I am free-carried, have sold some, and so I have positioned myself for whatever may happen. I can back up my assessment (and gut-feel) without having to worry about the "sky falling in".

I watched a Netflix "Dirty Money" episode called Drug Short on the weekend. I recommend it to any one investing in this space. Pretty eye-opening. While it focused on a large pharma company Valeant and their spectacular rise (and fall), there was also a very brief mention of Merck. Valeant basically drove its increase in company value by buying out smaller drug companies, stripping out all R&D and then jacking up the cost of the drug. Essentially, they grew by increasing the cost of the drug, not by volume - the number of people benefiting from a drug actually decreased. They preferred drugs that were very effective and did not have alternatives or generics so they had a monopoly - and could therefore hold the consumers to ransom. The practice continues...

We are all here to make money, and I am no different. However, that's never the whole picture. LT holders have taken the greatest risk... will they see the greatest rewards? For me, $1.75 is not an acceptable return on my 9 year investment supporting the research and development of Catavak.

It really is a shame Australian researchers can't take their IP all the way into production...