Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form , page-114

re: Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Pro... JIMO:

It looks quite plain to me. The first time the in-house patch was announced, it ruffled feathers. That's because the company story had changed. When that happens, it's either clearly for the better or it's for the worse - that's my repeated experience. OBJ says they are doing it to not be dependent on big company timelines. Then they hire someone to take it to market. Then they refuse to confirm or deny PNO, and they say they are considering all options for funding it in response to my CR question. Then they ask for an increased CR limit.

I'm not saying a CR is definite, but gee, the evidence lines up, don't you think? Imagine it was another company - what would you conclude? Surely, you would say they are going to go for their own product ASAP.

Speculation: I think this matches up with Palermo panic-buying both companies earlier in the year. I'd say they got good results from the patch testing, and so they are pushing it ASAP - naively believing good results will translate to large market share.

abdm,

"The board of OBJ are well aware that the "going-it-alone" option in the current economic environment would be a recipe for corporate suicide. It simply makes no commercial common sense to execute a CR when the company simply does not even need to raise any funds. This is the point I think most people might be forgetting."

If the board is "well aware" of all that, then they can tell holders that. I'm sure you would agree with that, wouldn't you? That way, people might not "forget" those points. What's wrong with naming PNO? Embarrassment? What's wrong with saying no CR for the in-house patch?