Thats right. Pretty clear for anyone interested in real facts that it has nothing to do with performance and can, despite others constant misinformation, be done by the shareholders of the company as per the corporations act.
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s203d.html
Whilst poor performance can be debated (Im on the side of poor fwiw), there are signs as others have pointed to of significant missteps by the current board (I would be getting rid of GP too if it were up to me) :
- Bonuses for a trial that was delayed
- Funding / cash flow missteps resulting in high interest loans against upcoming R&D rebates
- Ridiculous allocations of (at the time) low priced options with no regard for shareholder sentiment
- Ridiculous, disproportionate bonuses for basic achievements many would consider a natural part of a salaried role
- Proposing constitutional changes that on face value degraded shareholders ability to help guide the business they invested in
- A director, who when speaking at the AGM, did not refer to ONE tangible achievement during his spiel, only spruiking dollars over cents in an attempt to wow the crowd with distractions from what he has actually contributed
- Failing to understand the optics of JG apparently heading to JP Morgan when you already have a director in the states and a failed trial and board challenge as your present headline. Even if was paid for, manage the message rather than holders hearing rumors from other sources. Really bad judgement call on this if true.
- Stating to individuals that there is an abundance of misinformation out there, but choosing to send the CEO to JP Morgan instead of engaging with shareholders via webinars to address the apparent misinformation.
Make no mistake, the "partners" that may have been interested upon success would have been interested without any phone calls from AF in advance. His role was always superfluous as demonstrated by not replacing him - It was ALWAYS work JG should have been doing.
So that brings us back to the point made by many here over the years, they may be good medically, they may be good at science, but in a business sense if you check all of the track records over the journey do they have what is required?
And on top of all of this now, the raise that was about protecting the company regardless of results, now potentially biting them as suitors seek to access the cash pile without them there to enjoy the spoils. I wonder if they considered this scenario at the time and what is going through their heads now possibly sitting at the bar in San Fran sipping the the 2022 shareholder Brut at the hotel....
GLAH however it turns out.
