AGM - Melbourne

Attended the OIL AGM today in Melbourne. 

There was 30 - 35 shareholders in attendance.

It was an interesting meeting with a number of shareholders speaking up and pressing for answers to a range of questions, most of which were deflected by the ExecutiveChairman/CEO/CFO/SalesDirector, Mr Darren Laurie.

Majority shareholder in OIL, Mr Ian Mann asked what appeared to be reasonable questions as did Peter Delaney’s wife, none of which were answered satisfactorily judging by the reaction of those in attendance.

It appeared that the departure of Peter Delaney was not necessarily of his own choice, or that no real effort was made to retain him by the board, again it was not clear as to why the founder, scientist and CTO, Peter Delaney has “resigned” from OIL.

The words that I came away feeling most from the AGM and from the board, unfortunately were arrogance, delusional and a sense of entitlement.

They appear to believe that what they consider they have achieved in the past 6 months is the only good work that OIL has ever delivered.

It was stated from the floor more than once that the board was taking credit and rewarding the directors for work that had already been well advanced for some time before they arrived such as, FDA approval, QA accreditation and the adoption of an employee share plan which was approved at the 2017 AGM by the previous board.

The floor made the point that most things they were taking credit for were well advanced or in place before they were appointed. 

When questioned about the drop in the OIL share price (13c to 5.8c) and reduced market capitalisation value ($55m-$23m, Graham Mutton said “share price is not the boards responsability”  the room collectively gasped as he realised what he had just said. 

At one point a shareholder repeatedly told the board that ‘we the shareholders are the owners” and “we have the right to ask questions”

There was a shareholder who requested to Graham Mutton that he stop rolling his eyes and making faces at shareholder questions.

Dr Curry at one point was asked by Ian Mann regarding the accuracy of and his support for a previous ASX announcement from December 2017, after a prolonged silence by Dr Curry and then a whispered briefing by Mr Darren Laurie, he bumbled through an answer of sorts, not addressing the point Mr Mann had made.

This was quite embarrassing for everyone.

In the end all board resolutions got up, so shareholders have voted in favour.

The issuing of performance shares and options was discussed and the floor repeatedly requesting what the KPI measurements were, however again no clear answers were given and the board appeared to be offended that shareholders would question them on this.

There was a sense of distain from the board that shareholders would even question the drop in share prices and market capitalisation value of OIL over the past year and the board continued references to the “exceptional work” of the past 6 months. 

They spoke a lot about the clinical trial for Breast Cancer being the saviour, this is being run by Dr Curry out of Perth with what sounded like a couple of mates, one a surgeon and the other a pathologist.

This breast cancer trial has just 9 patients in total and images or samples taken are all Ex Vivo.

It would appear that this clinical trial has a way to go.

When questioned about the outcomes and why performance shares were being linked to the trial and not the outcome, again blank looks and no specific answers from Dr Curry or the board.

The trial is a four stage process, stages 1,2 & 3 OIL will use a Five 2 pre-clinical research product and therefore will have to design and make or find a sheath for this to advance.

Stage 4 would have to be completed by a clinical product and sheath and you would assume this will have to have FDA approvals, just as Zeiss have for Convivo.

It appears that Zeiss are not involved in or behind any part of this clinical trial.

Ian Mann questioned the breast cancer trail and said that “Zeiss has the existing rights to Breast Cancer” 

Not entirely sure what that will mean when it comes to attempting to sell this if Zeiss already have the rights locked up under some form of or an existing agreement. 

Questions were raised as to why Peter Delaney isn’t involved in the Breast Cancer trial, given his experience in all previous clinical trials, Peter Delaney said he had been involved in ‘more than 20 clinical trails” even as a consultant or observer appears to validate that Dr Curry (who someone in the audience referred to as FIGJAM a term I was not familiar with at the time) would prefer that Peter Delaney was not around so no one can question his methods or process.

The votes were counted and the shareholders dispersed and the board won the day.

Lets hope they can deliver on the next phase of growth.

if anyone else was their at the AGN, please put up your version of events, this is just what I gleaned from the meeting and would welcome others input.