Considered rationally, there should be no downside risk. Before...

Considered rationally, there should be no downside risk. Before the takeover was launched the company was out of funds, had a brand new product requiring development with unknown potential, and facing a CR at a low share price of around 7c.

The takeover bid produced:

1. unconditional funding for the company of $4 million, provided by Pfizer
2. validation provided by Pfizer of enormous potential for the new product
3. massive inflation of the company's profile on the global med-tech stage
4. independent, highly qualified, professional valuation of the company in a range with a mid-point at 20c per share

However you may be right based on changes in the business context and constituency of shareholders:

1. there will be many new shareholders who bought on the prospect of the takeover, with little or no understanding of the company's business model, product mix, or improvements in the business state
2. the credentials of the cough-acoustics-diagnosis got smacked down badly when the data confirmation analysis failed
3. the lack of action / news seems to be eating into the confidence of quite a few holders

So when the takeover is rejected in five weeks or so from now there could be quite a lot of knee-jerk bailing out. In the longer term it won't matter. This is a strong stock with a product perfectly suited to a recession market where health providers will be looking for a lower-cost way to deliver better health care outcomes to more customers with minimal up-front investment and minimal operational overhead.

With the mailout I plan to write separately to recently (re-)entered holders in a bid to provide a broader understanding and soften the impact.