alternate pov

So now we have a company that for the first time in its history is on the verge of making significant inroads into the global sharps market with not just one lousy 1ml syringe, but a suite of state-of-the-art products featuring patent protected safety features and functionality unrivalled by any competitor, existing or would-be, including the mighty Becton Dickinson.

It's taken a while to get to this point. No argument with me on that. Plenty of other companies take longer. Many never make it. Certainly don't see any of Unilife's wannabe competitors from years ago occupyi8ng the same space we now enjoy.

Funnily enough it takes money to get to where we are today. Lots of it. And yes, they have in the past said this was it. No more CRs.....

So what's changed? Plenty. The entire drug development landscape has changed. New drugs never before imagined or thought possible are being developed. Molecular drugs and biologics. The legislative landscape has changed. The industry itself has changed, been forced to change, because the old paradigm of commoditised off-the-shelf product doesn't meet the needs of the new healthcare paradigm.

So now we have multiple global pharma companies and health organsisations who have seen the 1ml and the Unifill, and like what they see. But it doesn't suit their precise needs for the disease they want to treat, or the new drug they want to deliver, or the way they need to deliver the drugs. So they say to Unilife, can you build us this..or that...or something esle? So Unilife says, sure we can do that. And they do.

And we also have a suite of products developed, not through a flight of fancy, but from real market-driven needs identified by those who would know - Big Pharma.

As these products are developed,, patented and approach full commercialisation, the interest they garner in the investment community snowballs. Institutions who want to share in the imminent success of the company, approach with offers of capital to help underwrite and accelerate the commercialisatuion of these products. Not one of them, but all of them.

Meanwhile, the global economy is in meltdown. And even though the company has enough cash to get through another year or so, and get SOME of these products to market, it isn't enough to get them ALL to market and realise their full potential. Or do it fast enough to satisfy greedy shareholders needs. Because let's face it, nothing altruistci about us despite the hysterical hypocritical bleatings of corporate greed to the contrary, we all want our slice of the pie too. And man, have we been waiting a long time to get our fill.

So what does our board do? Does a reckless unprofessional board, say, thanks but no thanks, not interested, we can't take your money. We've got sufficient for the meantime. Come back in a year or two and we'll see where we are.

Or does a prudent, professional board say, actually, given the company's position right now, and given what we know we have in the pipeline, and what we expect the demand to be, and what are capital requirements are going to be in order to fully meet and capitalise on that demand, and most importantly, given the state of the global economy specifically, and the investment markets generally, does a professional prudent board say, thanks very much, yes we'll take your money and, acting in the best interests of all shareholders, secure the company and its future against anything the current economic turmoil may throw at us?

Not only secure the company against the turmoil, but give it the financial wherewhithal to FULLY implement the business plan, thereby making it an even more attractive investment proposition than it is now?

I know what sort of board I want, and the decisions I want it to make. I find it astonishing and not a little bemusing that some think otherwise. Funny that the same US-based institutions who will take up this offer don't share the same views about management as a small but vocal minority on HC do.

Now why is that, I wonder?

Oh that's right...