Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form-PTX.AX, page-4

Maxter, first and foremost, voting is one's excise of conveying their private thought on an issue without others influences, hence no comment.
Second, I am a holder of PTX post consolidation, again no comment.
On stating the facts, my previous post, I failed to say that under the Asx rule of placement, a 10-15%(can't remember of hand), is acceptable each year for any asx listed company with many opting to a further 10-15% voting at their respective general meetings.
Each company has a dichotomous dillema, constantly at paradox, that of their business and product models.
On many occasions the product model has been discussed and will continue to dominated discussion among us as the general consensus is the science and it's products are worth holding.
The business model, on the other hand, is rarely discussed and often egos and experience are often conflicting and confusing.
IMO only, and with limited experience and often failed expectations (but some great wins as well), I would like to share some thoughts on the illusions entwined between so and funds at hand by any company that had floated on the stock market.
In ptx's case, a company can make a decision to receive extra funding (placement and/capital raising), if it see that the timeline required to mature a product(s), will enhance the probability to mature.
This decision often comes via dilution and often a downwards trend on the so. As holders, this is often the last thing we want yet we sometimes don't see the picture from top to bottom. Let me explain, I currently hold another bio stock (not the last mentioned), which has just got Ind approval for phase 3 on one of their products, obviously great data results from phase 2, yet the company's so I'd so ridiculously discounted and their burn rate so high (also recently had a capital raise), the further capital raising is impractical, hence in part or as a whole the entire company is in the process of trying to sell it's IP, and or anything else of value whilst funds continue to evaporate. And yes, the SP was a substantial level at data result at both phases 1 and 2.
The point being, as stated earlier, regardless of the SP, companies have a burn rate accelerated by each product and it's phase of investigation.
Where a placement may not be current shareholders wishes with respect to their own dilution, if the intent is mid to long term, then funding is certainly a criterion especially if the science is promising, as the case is in my opinion with this share we hold.
I apologize about the length of this post but on more thing (although I could go on further).
If, this current or a new substantial investor was asked to buy on market, yes the SP would certainly have risen yet the funding held by the company to see their timeline though may not have eventuated.
Love to read other posters ideas and thoughts.
PS, also would like to know if any r interested in the Greek island gathering upon an announcement of commercialisation.
GLTAH