It's obvious from multiple posts that several stockholders have written off the current CEO over the litigation with GSK.
I'm struggling to see why given the following:
1. The litigation was commenced by the previous CEO
2. The previous CEO decided to leave prior to the success or otherwise of the proceedings
3. The current CEO inherited the case with:
- costs to date of $20m
- no resolution apparent within the immediate future
- the prospect of a similar amount being required to progress to a definitive stage
- no guarantee that proceedings would be successful
Put yourself in that situation and it was no surprise to me to see what eventuated.
I can understand why several posters are quite disappointed given the projections (from previous management) of what a successful litigation might deliver.
However, the hysteria displayed, in my opinion, is mis-directed.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- BTA
- gsk litigation
gsk litigation
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 5 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add BTA (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
I88
INFINI RESOURCES LIMITED
Charles Armstrong, CEO
Charles Armstrong
CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online