Hi all
To apprehend any concerns about destruction of SH value in relation to the below, I note DT as CEO will hold the benefit of a directors and officers policy of insurance. Any costs arising out of the below matters are likely to be met by the insurer of that policy and not DT personally or the company.
I have created this thread in the hope that the collective resources of shareholders may assist in collating representations (express or arising by silence) made by DT or the company which have turned out to be false or misleading.
The gist of my interest is this: shareholders were advised that the company had a gold standard product for the rapid detection of COVID-19 during the peak of the pandemic. Sale of that product was predicated on various approvals including the EU Mark and TGA approval. After obtaining the EU Mark, no sales were realised because further country-specific requirements were required to be satisfied (which, from my recollection, was not made clear to shareholders at the time of seeking EU approval or when explaining the decision to choose EU over NA or AU). Europe was sold on the promise of a 500 million + person market as to why we did not apply to TGA. Yet there are about 27 countries in the EU. It is unforgivable if the further country-specific requirements were not properly explained at the time. As to TGA approval, DT advised that approval was expected "imminently" (I would be grateful if others could outline the various iterations of this statement).
The Australian Consumer law provides, variously:
4 Misleading representations with respect to future matters
(1) If:
(a) a person makes a representation with respect to any future matter (including the doing of, or the refusing to do, any act); and
(b) the person does not have reasonable grounds for making the representation;
the representation is taken, for the purposes of this Schedule, to be misleading.
18 Misleading or deceptive conduct
(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
29 False or misleading representations about goods or services
(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:
(a) make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; or
...
(d) make a false or misleading representation that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services; or
...
(g) make a false or misleading representation that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits; or
...
(i) make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services; or
...
(l) make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services; ...Some may point out that DT could have had reasonable grounds at the time of making certain statements. That may or may not be true once compelled through the court process to disclose the information it held at various times during this trainwreck. Irrespective of that possibility, I am reasonably confident that the near non-existent communication to shareholders meant that the substance of those statements were allowed to persist long after they became false. Misleading conduct or representations may (and frequently does) arise by silence.
I invested in this company following a price sensitive announcement that our Anteobind customer, Ellume, had secured a supply contract for $300 million in NA. From memory, it was not until the quarterly results that it became apparent that the terms of our supply contact with Ellume generated no material revenue. We were told there would be an opportunity to rectify this upon renegotiation of that agreement given the essential nature of Anteobind to Ellume's product. Following the conclusion of that agreement, no pricing details were released on the basis of commercial-in-confidence terms. I am at a loss as to why the Ellume announcement was price sensitive other than to pump an affiliation that would ultimately generate no material revenue to shareholders.
Unsurprisingly, I do not have the time or funds to consider legal proceedings myself (nor would my shareholding alone warrant it). However, there are plenty of plaintiff firms and litigation funders who do. Unless you intend to recover your loss personally, I do not see the issue with sharing a portion of any proceeds with a litigation funder. Hundreds of millions of market cap has been wiped out due to the making of statements which should not have been made, as well as protracted delays in withdrawing or updating those statements. I am sure many here bought into this company on the basis of that conduct.
I would very much welcome others to summarise their complaints regarding DT or the company so that they may be collated and reviewed. Personally, I think DT will very much come to regret the word "imminently".
My position is not held because I exited at market today at break even price.
Regards
AC
(20min delay)