Me109,Quote: According to West, there was also a subsequent...

Me109,

Quote: According to West, there was also a subsequent offer from Gsk to Bta, in April 2007, of $75M plus costs. Interestingly, West also recalls the Bta CEO, Peter Cook, as saying soon after settling with Gsk (it still pains me to say it) for $20M and no costs - that there were "a number of settlement discussions over the 4-year course of the litigation; the most recent was in 2006". West’s revelations of the Gsk offers were complete news to me. Was it so for other Bta SHs?

One has to be a complete idiot to turn down a $100M offer plus costs; then turn down a subsequent $75M plus costs and ultimately accepted $20M without costs.

As more news on the GSK litigation comes to light, shareholders had certainly been hard done by Peter Cook. It is highly debatable that BTA can or could reveal the offer settlements as the offers are often confidential and therefore cannot be revealed. Thus I don’t think BTA is in breach of its duty in regard to announcing these confidential offers. HOWEVER when Peter Cook announced "a number of settlement discussions over the 4-year course of the litigation; the most recent was in 2006" is clearly at odds with the revelation of the $75M plus costs offered in April 2007. If there was indeed this $75M offer, then in plain language Peter Cook LIED to shareholders.

In the 24 July ASX announcement, when the Relenza sales fell to a paltry $6.2M Peter Cook said “Whilst royalty is low, it reflects the off-season in the Northern hemisphere”. All those who know the Relenza market know that Relenza sales to the seasonal flu market is negligible and close to zero. Relenza sales were close to 100% to the Governments’ pandemic stockpiles. Clearly Peter Cook statement is at odds with the TRUTH, just like his statement the most recent settlement offer was in 2006.


Shareholders should all get excited, but mounting a class suit and getting damages is another matter. Shareholders will have to prove how the above 2 examples of misleading statements caused shareholders to loose money. In the Aristrocat case, when the company losses were revealed, the share price plummeted and subsequent events revealed the board did not disclose information that it should.

In Biota, in my humble opinion, there is no duty and even to the extent that BTA was not permitted to announce these confidential settlement offers while the case was ongoing. Whilst these settlement offers now show the complete incompetence and stupidity of Peter Cook and the board, “incompetence and stupidity” are not the same as wrong doings. Shareholders cannot recover losses for their board incompetence and stupidity. They can only sack the board! Unless shareholders can show lossess directly attributable to the 2 examples of wrong doings in recent annoucements, there is not much to claim!

With all these latest revelations, to reward Peter Cook with a 38% increase in remunerations and share options is unquestionable arrogance and total disrespect for shareholders.