Albie,Biota sp was hitting the lows in the range of about 38...

Albie,
Biota sp was hitting the lows in the range of about 38 cents to 60 cents from 2002 to about 2005.

The launching of litigation was the momentous beginning of hope for BTA shareholders to capture some compensation value from GSK. The circumstantial evidences supporting BTA’s case was most encouraging and I am one among many investors coming on board on the strength of the case. If you were to read some of my early posts, I was not carried away with unfettered exuberances unlike some other posters (where are you dma?). I was cautiously optimistic despite my misgivings on the “lack of talents in the Biota board” and in particular I had posted then that Peter Cook was as sharp as a brick. As it turned out, my cautious optimism in the legal case was proven correct by GSK’s multiple offers to settle and at the same time Peter Cook and the BTA board had demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt their talent for idiotic decisions, making misleading and deceptive or outright stupid statements to shareholders and an unblemished record of executives wealth creation.

I have reasons to believe that directors of companies owe a duty similar to substantial shareholders to announce changes in their shareholdings/options. Yet despite the tripling of executive options in the 07/08 financial year, I could not locate a single announcement (other than in the financial reports) of such changes as and when Peter Cook were showered with free options or when he was enriched in exercising those free options into Biota shares. Perhaps this is in line with Peter Cook’s idiotic statement that for a company of Biota’s size, corporate governance is good. Put plainly, Peter Cook implied corporate governance is related to company size. So perhaps it is okay for directors of a $2 company (many times smaller than Biota) may plunder and steal from the company as corporate governance diminishes with company size!

Now back to your point Albie. Despite BTA regularly raise capital from 2002 to 2005 to finance the litigation, the market had hope in the case and the market was willing to give Peter Cook and his mates a chance to prove their worth. Since then, Peter and his mates had displayed their finest quality for idiotic decisions and wealth creation which is why the share price is where it is not withstanding the great potentials of the many good drugs in development such as Lani and HRV.

As to QUOTE: “there's evidence that GSK is becoming active in marketing Relenza to US companies”.
Correction Albie: After Peter Cook sold the legal case down the drain, GSK immediately went about marketing PUT OPTIONS for Relenza. Biota shareholders will not smell a penny of royalty for the PUT OPTIONS until a full blown bird flu pandemic occurs and the buyers exercise the put options.

As to the shares buyback, the timing and decision was bad enough. BUT worst still was the manner it was carried out. As the financial turmoils were bubbling all around us, Peter Cook was buying up to 93% of the daily turnover volume. Yes Albie, show me a similar idiot who bought 93% of share turnover right in the midst of this market turmoil and I wll promise you I will not post another Peter Cook Classic.!!