Moreld, I am impressed with your objectivity about Peter Cook’s...

Moreld,
I am impressed with your objectivity about Peter Cook’s performance.
“Quote: abobo states Cook is atrocious and then only point to one change in share price at one company as your evidence. Not quite a body of evidence is it. abobo if you have any substantial analysis please share it. I'm keen to learn and happy to be proved wrong in my assumption that you'd be unable to do so. End of Quote”

As you are unable to find the Peter Classic announcements, let me repeat some of my previous posts for your convenient reading:

Peter Cook and his mates announced Peter Molloy launched the legal case prior to him (Peter Cook) joining BTA and had it not been for the legal case the FY07/08 would be a profit. Yes, what Peter Cook’s twisted facts are facts, save for the fact that if Peter Cook had the common sense to accept the $75M plus legal costs settlement offer, the FY06/07 would reap a bumper profit in addition to a possible even better 07/08.

Peter said in Aug 08 (QUOTE) “The share buyback was temporarily halted when the company become aware of impending licensing deals and important clinical trial updates”. The truth is BTA had been announcing news of clinical trials in the middle of the earlier buy backs. Even information on Relenza royalties which are fundamental to BTA’s income did not caused Peter Cook to suspend share buy backs. Peter Cook failed his duty to promptly inform shareholders of the suspension of the share buyback in Mid May. Instead on 30 May 08, BTA reported the share buybacks for the half month of May as for the whole month of May.

In the 24 July 08 ASX announcement, when the Relenza sales fell to a paltry $6.2M Peter Cook said QUOTE “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. He probably was hoping all shareholders are stupid enough not to be able to calculate that the Relenza sales had plummeted 96% from the $158.2M June 07 same off-season quarter to the miserable $6.2M June 08 quarter. Clearly Peter Cook statement is at odds with the TRUTH and insulting to shareholders

After Roche reported a sharp drop in quarterly Tamiflu sales, on 24 Oct 07 where shareholders were asked to vote for 121,258 free executive share options, Peter Cook explained there are “very viable ways for GSK to grow Relenza sales” and QUOTE “ There is therefore no reason to assume the down turn in volumes experienced by Roche with Tamiflu should be experienced by GSK with Relenza”. End of Quote
Less than 24 hours later, Peter Cook announced Relenza quarterly sales had dropped by 70% from $171.4M to $52.5M. To insult shareholders’ intelligence Peter Cook commented (QUOTE):”The Q1 figures are consistent with Biota’s expectation.”

In August 2007; Peter Cook announced “profit in excess of $18M” to “exceeding $17M”. The press had a field day with the profit down grade and a week later BTA reported an after-tax profit in excess of $20M. Is this the act of a first class CEO?

Moreld, the above sterling performances are from the limited public information on BTA which is less than the tip of an iceberg. A CEO exhibiting such outstanding performance in limited BTA announcements will have a lot more gongs hidden in his day-to-day executive decisions which are not reported to the public.

Peter Cook had proven beyond reasonable doubt his expertise to use “facts” twisted as it may be to show how well he had performed as the CEO of BTA.

You don’t have to look far. To state in the AGM, “Quote : Significant Relenza royalty flows emerging $54 million to date . Any favourable court award would deduct Relenza royalties received and discount future royalties. End of Quote” as a logic to settle for $20M without costs is an insult to shareholders as the $54M royalties received are actual data that will assist to establish BTA damages far greater than BTA revised Particular of Loss and Damage (PLD).

Need any more evidence?


PS:
1) Quote: For your reference the common cash flows are cash flow from operations (CFFO), owner earnings, FCF to the firm, free cash flow to equity, unfettered free cash flow, the very basic change in cash and equivalents and net cash flow. End of Quote

And which of these cash flow definitions do Peter Cook’s “cash positive” belongs to?

2) Would you like some assistance on Peter Cook's unblemished skills in creating shareholders wealth?