You're referencing the wrong post.
These are corporate lawyers. You tell them what to do, not necessarily how to do it. There's a difference that you either don't realize, or are deliberately misstating my point(s).
If.. these same lawyers were told just do blah-blah-blah, and they were the ones that did the Mazor details - then yes I would have told them "how" to do it. Surely, you do recall the run away train that was the share price?
Further, you're references of the distant past issues, ad nauseam, only further illustrate your need for a better reading comprehension filter, upgraded understanding of current events, and a new situational awareness module.
Yes Titan has an ancient history that's not pretty. The business environment is different now. Regardless of the FUD from you, and the other 2 stooges. There's a reference to "your" group think - in legal jargon, known as (ASSAD- pronounced assed, the 2nd A is silent) A Summary Situational Awareness Deficit.
Speaking of situational awareness. You do understand the definition of "estimate," right? Do you understand how a timeline may be missed because of the development of components and software that HAS NEVER been invented before? Which could easily create missed timelines. For most (clearly not the ASSAD group) who invest in cutting edge devices/pharma/software/etc., it's easily understood as they pursue the holy grail of business. A.K.A. PATENTS. You don't get these by copying something that has already been developed. Again, situational awareness deficit.
Your critique of missed timelines, without the full understanding of ALL the decades of device protection owned by TMDI, only shows your ignorance regarding first time creations. Of which, ENOS is just that. I'd bet real money that estimates were given by the development partners initially to make what was created - FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER - and could foresee how many of those would push a deadline, and domino a railroad schedule. Not an excuse, just a real possibility.
And....being sued by a consultant is de rigueur. Just because Titan settled doesn't mean that they wouldn't have won in a court of law. And if the suit was for $5M and the consultant got $1.2M, I'd say they took the offer b/c IF they had a case, the multiple would have been worth the fight. Again, situational awareness deficit.
Lastly - Why would MDT care how TMDI manages their money if they aren't going to do something significant in the future together? And do tell, how in the he!! did the share price get so high, so fast during that raise??? Also, there's this thing called email, and auditors that could have easily addressed any faux concern of proper cash management. And there is also a development agreement committee to oversee progress. So, "as you say" MDT needed to require TMDI to raise $18M - in addition to the $41M they were going to pay for the development? I think what you meant was the $18M was for budget cushion in case the development estimates were too low b/c TMDI was creating "things" for the fist time - from pure thought, not mismanaged. And I'm phrasing that correctly b/c there's direct reference to any IP that which may be awarded to be shared by both.
Which only proves one thing. What TMDI is doing is worth 40% more than what MDT thinks it is, b/c MDT required 40% more cash on hand for the development. See, situational awareness is important b/c now everyone understands how critically important first-time development, and the results (the holy grail) that awaits those that can create something from pure thought.
And email responses like this.
Good luck to all. Regards,BK.
AI
