I'm with you @Red bar - I will be voting against all the substantive resolutions, including:
1. The re-election of Chris Ntoumenopolos as a Director (Res 3),
2. The re-election of Dr Michael Stein as a Director (Res 4) and
3. The Approval of issue of Director Incentive Options (Res 6).
Like many here, I'm deeply disappointment and frustrated with the execution of ResApp’s strategy to date. Ultimately the Board and management have failed to deliver value to shareholders. Whilst I know others might argue that Tony and/or Roger should also go, given that only Chris and Michael are up for re-election at the AGM, I propose to use my vote against their re-election to also put the rest of the board on notice.
I have several concerns regarding the company’s current leadership and direction. The schoolboy like mistakes that continue to be made are inexcusable. The company’s poor track record speaks for itself: Failed US trials, FDA declining to approve ResApp Dx-US, MSF walking away, Sanofi not exercising its option, delays in submitting for regulatory approval for sleep apnoea, expensive and delayed CE approval process for the handheld and wearables devices, embarrassing product uptake in the latest 4C and an inability to deliver any meaningful telehealth partnership deals to date.
The only reason i have stuck around (stupidly at least to date), is because i believe in the underlying technology.
Why I'm voting against the resolutions (and in particular the three stated above):
1. The re-election of Chris Ntoumenopolos as a Director (Res 3)
- Chris has had his chance to prove his value to the Board, yet I haven't be made aware of any specific examples of where he has added value to the company, or its operations over the many years he has been on the Board
- Chris has sat on the Board throughout all of the failings to date and did not have the vision, or impact to invoke positive change
- Per above, broader message to the Board to express frustration at their lack of delivery
2. The re-election of Dr Michael Stein as a Director (Res 4) and The Approval of issue of Director Incentive Options (Res 6)
- Whilst Michael is relatively new to the Board, the company appears to be trying to pull the rug over the eyes of its shareholders by granting options him options... I have no problem with a company granting options to Director’s or employees that have proven themselves and added tangible value to the company. However, these options were granted to Michael before he had done anything for the company
- The company did the exact same thing with Nathan Buzza. He was willing to take the free options and also conveniently play the independent director card. Why would any rationale current or prospective investor put their money into ResApp, when those charged with running the company have themselves not stepped up and bought shares on market? The BOD’s continues to spruik the company’s strategy and long term prospects, yet none of the Board have bought any shares on market for an extended period of time, if at all. As investors, we have been told of the “imminent” deals and the “rapid commercialisation”, but we are still waiting… Having some skin in the game is a critical first step to restoring lost confidence. Michael's lack of skin in the game is not acceptable to me
- Given the context of Michael's appointment, the dismal share price and the numerous failings by the ResApp management, I view the Board's decision to grant him options (and his willingness to accept them) as a huge slap in the face to shareholders and seemingly demonstrates that the ResApp BOD have failed to learn from their past failures
- Per above, broader message to the Board to express frustration at their lack of delivery
I truly hope that the company is able to close some of these partnership discussions that we have heard about for months... Positive news on the partnership front is well overdue... shareholders deserve to be rewarded for our patience
Cheers
