TT, You did well in your summary on the great performance of the Peter Cook and his fellow directors. QUOTING TT: They went into America, and withdrew, costing about 15 million.
They went into legal action and withdrew, costing 30 million.
They were offered 100 million and rejected it, costing 100 million.
They started a buyback at levels 100% higher than the current share price, and withdrew.
And of course, the problem is that they have more good assets to ruin. The board are bad tenants in a really nice house.
I will elaborate 2 of TT's points : “They were offered 100 million and rejected it, costing 100 million”. It cost shareholders a lot more!! In 2006, GSK has no Birdflu vaccine. Governments were screaming for pandemic antiviral stockpile. They threaten to breach patent protection; forcing GSK to increase Relenza production. The $100M offer was as much as BTA’s capitalisation. A settlement would result in GSK rapidly increasing production and capturing a bigger proportion of the billions $ demand. This is a wasted opportunity of hundreds of millions in missed royalties. Peter Cook turned the offer down, spend $30M to $40M, and with the pandemic stockpile market all but supplied by Gillead; GSK marketing their new Birdflu vaccine, Peter Cook settled for $20M!! Is this stupidity?? Were there any Swiss Bank accounts?
“They started a buyback at levels 100% higher than the current share price, and withdrew”.
Around mid May, Peter Cook had information affecting the share price and they decided to suspend the share buyback. Yet on 30 May they reported the share buyback for half the month of May to shareholder as for the whole month of May and did not tell shareholder of the suspension of share buyback. Was this intentional or was it a mistake? Was it to prevent the share price from dropping if the suspension was announced? If announced would there be a share holders’ revolt when these clever executives diluted the shareholdings converting the hundreds of thousands options into shares paying a ZERO exercise price?
AND to rub salt into wounds, these clever executives pointed to “seasonal market” for the fast dwindling Relenza sale reports KNOWING well that Relenza has close to zero sales to the seasonal flu market. The sales were all pandemic stock sales forced upon GSK by government demands.
In short, are these competent executives? Have they acted with diligent, honesty and respect for shareholders? To add the final insult, let me quote Port’s post on these clever executives: "Our governance is particularly sound for a company of its size, with experienced directors working diligently and cooperatively."
Oh yeah? So directors of company of BTA’s size do not owe the same duties to shareholders as directors of a larger company? Conversely, directors of companies much smaller than BTA would owe lesser duties – they can plunder and rob shareholders, can they?
Is this the reasonings of Mr Crook and his fellow directors? Ooops sorry, I meant Peter Cook.
BTA Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
