Fabius......while a good idea, it would could be extremely litigious. LOL the fact that, we all would be shareholders would be the catch. It could be easily be construed as a violation of SEC rules if it were thought that we as a group were acting in concert to effect share price or value. at that point the supposed group could be subject to SEC prosecution unless a 13G was formed.
Its a real gray area. We would have a difficult time proving we are not acting in concert in regards to trading which would be the big no no.
again, nice thought. probably the best way to hopefully effect change is to reach out to the company on a 1 on 1 basis and express concerns and or ideas as shareholders. Now, will they be taken seriously? Its difficult to say. I once had a conversation with a gentleman from IR. I expressed my concerns regarding more PR's and better information to shareholders. (this recent issues of me just happening to find that at some point the company filed an new ANDA and never communicated it to us is a prime example.
The response was, he had communicated the same thoughts to Odidi and Odidi refused the idea. feeling he will release news as he feels is important. when I continued to argue the point , the reply was..."well, you need to take that into consideration when making your investment choices and it that's important to you, maybe this isn't the company for you"
Needless, to say, I was shocked into silence but, its true. This is the double edge sword with investing in a company where the main scientist is also the principle shareholder as well as CEO. this is also why I feel, we don't have the Institutional investors as other companies because of this relationship. This setup would not pass a lot of Institutions basis for investment.
The loan to Odidi is a prime example. its a 12% loan made to the company and is convertible into 500,000 shares of stock at $3 a share. there has been numerous times we had 1.5 million on hand to pay off this loan but its never been paid back. why? because the owner is getting 12% interest. while at the time it was necessary, we have held that loan for what 3 years now ! that loan could have easily been converted into a bank loan at probably half the interest rate by now. but it hasn't. that's because I feel Odidi wants to convert it into shares once he partners Rexista.
Its those types of "self serving" issues that Institutions shy away from. not so much this loan as its minimal in the scheme of things BUT the underlying dynamics that anything like that can happen that could be more costly to a shareholder.
so, we just keep passing on to them our thoughts and concerns and reassessing our tolerance risks.
AI
