As the Australian article is locked, below is copy. just goes to...

As the Australian article is locked, below is copy.
just goes to show how Rabid, personal derogatory remarks can come back to bite you on the Ass.

some people who are short on etiquette, should read the defamatory guidelines on HC

Oncosil row: Chris Roberts joins board amid legal stoush with Christian Behrenbruch

• REBECCA URBAN
• THE AUSTRALIAN
• JANUARY 27, 2016 12:00AM
• SAVE
• PRINT

Former Cochlear boss Chris Roberts has joined the board of Oncosil Medical.

• 
  

Former Cochlear boss Chris Roberts has joined the board of life sciences hopeful Oncosil Medical, amid a messy legal stoush with an outspoken industry commentator over questions regarding the marketability of its cancer treatment.

Oncosil this month threatened to sue Christian Behrenbruch, the operator of the popular ASX Long Tail biotech website, for defamation over his analysis of the publicly listed company, including accusing the biotech of having a “flawed” product.
Dr Behrenbruch has, in turn, accused Oncosil’s one-time corporate adviser and one of its largest investors, Forrest Capital’s Kim Hogan, of threatening him via text message.
The stoush, which was made public by Dr Behrenbruch via his website, has sparked fears among some brokers and analysts that they might also be subject to legal threats over unfavourable analysis. While large companies cannot be defamed, management named in reports may sue if they feel they have been defamed.
Mr Hogan strongly denied he had attempted to intimidate Dr Behrenbruch or that his approach was linked to the Oncosil complaint. Mr Hogan, a 25-year finance industry veteran, together with Thomas Henderson, his co-director at Forrest Capital, rank among Oncosil’s largest shareholders, holding a combined 9.8 per cent of the company.
Oncosil also said it had no prior knowledge that Mr Hogan was planning to contact Dr Behrenbruch. “Hey Chris what’s your home address?” Mr Hogan wrote via an SMS on January 16.
After Dr Behrenbruch rejected his request, Mr Hogan replied: “Not to worry, I’ll get my lawyers to find out at your expense.
“Well done Chris, you’re on my 2016 list of things to do and if it takes 10 years all the better.”
Dr Behrenbruch uploaded a screengrab of the conversation on his website the following day — alongside references to state and territory criminal laws relating to harassment — claiming it was his site’s policy to publish any attempts at legal intimidation.
The commentator, who describes himself as a “serial entrepreneur, activist investor and academic”, and is also a director of the ASX-listed Factor Therapeutics, set up the website a year ago. His insightful — but often-pointed analysis — has won him a legion of fans and foes.
Marc Sinatra, an equities analyst with broking house Lodge Partners, spoke out in support of Dr Behrenbruch’s work this week, expressing concern that companies would attempt to “shut debate down” by deploying legal means.
“It always amazes me that companies work with lightning speed to take advantage of the benefits of being public, but then get upset when the public’s gaze turns to them,” Mr Sinatra said. “When you are a public company you must expect the public to comment on you.”
Dr Behrenbruch said he aimed to provide much-needed independent analysis on Australia’s listed biotech sector, which he felt was being let down by a lack of effective corporate governance, largely to the detriment of retail investors.
He acknowledged that his analysis often attracted flak but he was left with no doubts as to the intentions of Mr Hogan — someone who he had no previous dealings with. “It’s hard to interpret it as being benign,” he said. Mr Hogan said his messages had been misinterpreted.
“My intention was to have a private correspondence or send a letter in regards to the blogger’s position on (Factor Therapeutics), of which he’s a director,” Mr Hogan said. “I’m not sure that if you’re an executive director of one company, whether you should be commentating on others in the same industry. All these biotech companies are competing for the same pools of capital.’’
Dr Behrenbruch acknowledged that some people had expressed concerns over his dual roles but insisted he had been transparent about potential conflicts of interest and refrained from commenting on Factor Therapeutics or any of its competitors.
He issued an apology to Oncosil on January 15, but in doing so reiterated some of his original concerns with the company. “I don’t think the Oncosil product is a good product. I am entitled to my honest opinion,” he wrote.
“Oncosil, as a product, fundamentally flies in the face of a significant downward industry trend, and seems to ignore that there are some major clinical challenges in the deployment of the … technology.”
A spokesman for Oncosil said the company “reserved its rights” in regards to the original publications. In a letter to Dr Behrenbruch, the company’s lawyer claimed that, in response to his publications, “our client has had to respond to numerous negative inquiries from shareholders, stockbrokers, investors, scientists and other parties who have doubted the intentions and ability of Oncosil to develop and market the Oncosil device”.
The appointment of Dr Roberts — who last year retired from the top job at Cochlear but remains a non-executive director of ResMed — comes at a critical time for the company as it awaits CE Mark approval for its product, a localised radiation treatment for pancreatic and liver cancer. Oncosil’s share price has rallied 70 per cent over the past three months, despite the company experiencing delays obtaining marketing approval.
Dr Roberts’ appointment adds vital independence to Oncosil’s board. The company lost several experienced directors last financial year and since then has failed to follow the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s recommendation that a majority of a company’s board comprise independent directors.
In a statement issued by the company, Dr Roberts said that he was excited at the “opportunity to participate in the commercialisation of this innovative medical technology that has the potential to substantially improve the lives of people with cancer, particularly pancreatic cancer”.