10.5c, page-18

So, the gist of your argument is that someone with the stake in the company that Harry has should step aside for someone with less, and probably hugely less, at stake in the company's success. And this purportedly will lead to deals being done earlier, but why you would think this is left to the imagination.

You also must assume that Harry Rosen is either unwilling to accept advice or is otherwise incapable of appropriate judgement in these matters. Again, with no evidence adduced in support.

Then the prospect of a CR is dragged out. Of course, a further CR is always a prospective possibility, but there is no reason to assume that one will be necessary. The company has been very firm in its insistence that there is enough capital to take the opiate portfolio through to a deal. And that is without the recovery of several millions in cash. I have no reason to doubt the company's word that a CR is not in part of present planning.

Every so often someone starts posting undue pessimism on this forum. There is nothing wrong with skepticism and appropriate diligence, but this is kind of like dragging a carcass around to no purpose. That's why there will be a healthy skepticism regarding your bonafides around here. We think we've seen you before.