For those of us attending the AGM, there was no ambiguity about when testing was expected to be completed and follow-up sales (initially modest – for more in-depth testing) were expected to occur.
For those who think some shareholders are being too critical of the lack of performance due to the lack of date specificity in the company’s written communication, please consider this. If it is clear to management that shareholders have misunderstood the messaging about the critical development path of the business, as is the argued case, why would management allow such obfuscation to persist, especially since it is not in the company’s interest for shareholders to have such views? Given the repetitive attempts of shareholders to seek clarification from the company’s designated shareholder relations professional, a lack of awareness can’t be claimed.
I’m sure those arguing the ‘date specificity case’ have and will attribute the confusion to management’s poor communications skill (as if that is acceptable). While such can’t be argued against, the matter doesn’t settle on poor communication, it settles on management’s inability to accurately forecast the development path and/or the inability to execute.
The statement was made that it defies logic that any self-respecting executives would give Shannon the time of day unless he had approval from the EPA in hand. I would ask the writer to recall the dialog with the hospital chain in 2015 re: testing, pre-EPA approval, and the deferment of such when it became known that EPA approval was needed, even for testing, and the time to get a pre-EPA test approval was roughly contemporaneous with the time expected for the full application to be acted upon. As we know, that took considerably longer. In this respect, new ground with the test hospital needn’t be plowed post eventual EPA approval in November of 2016. Further, it was stated that the company was confident of EPA action, that they were unaware of any further information needs the EPA could possibly need. Additionally, the November date of EPA action is precisely according to its own protocol. As such, based upon 1) prior negotiations with the hospital, and 2) expectation of favorable EPA action, it would be logical for dialog between the company and the hospital to have begun pre-EPA action. Did it? We don’t know.
Some have argued that such dialog didn’t begin until January 2016. If true, how can management, at the AGM (mid-Dec.), make the statement that the key distinction between the Belleview test and the CA test is that the CA hospital will perform bacterial load measurement and will allow publicity of such?
Even if folks want to discount all of that, how long does it take for parties earnest to achieve their aims, to come to agreement and move forward? Just as now President Trump spoke of the future during his campaign, Ed has spoken for years about his optimism. Irrespective of one’s views about what the President has done or not done in three weeks, it’s clear the analogy breaks down when we see the President acting on his plan after an event precipitating the need to perform (the election) versus what we see in management’s performance post EPA action. Planning, preparedness and execution are clearly at an entirely different level.
I don’t think it’s really matters all that much what views shareholders have, whether they communicate such via posts or messages to management and the BOD.
It seems the company will do what it wills, when it wills and not before. Perhaps apart from the Cornerstone shareholder, shareholders have no voice absent a shareholder meeting. Given management’s propensity for poor communication and lack of effort at real communication at the AGM, there is no purpose for an AGM other than to ratify proxy votes. From my view, give management until mid-year to perform, and absent material progress, reinitiate the call for an AGM (which I doubt will happen in 2017 otherwise) and be prepared to offer a slate of new BOD candidates. If we haven’t seen much progress by mid-year, even management’s deferred 2nd half-2017 expectations would be in jeopardy.
Of course, all of this is IMO.
Market Data 
Markets 
