I believe that looking at where we are today requires us to look back at the choices made by the company over the last couple years. Going back to when the company first received the consolidated data from their contractors after the trial was locked they made a critical choice. They knew that a TLD statement without the backup of a peer review presentation of some sort would be the target of shorts, they clearly stated they be in a quiet period until they had peer reviewed data. They had the choice of having Dr. Liau present the trial at a major technical conference, then issue the official TLD statement, and being able to discuss the peer reviewed data, or they could wait longer, but have the data more comprehensively presented in a Journal, then announce the official TLD statement.
I believe that they knew that shorts would pounce on anything that wasn't fully explained in a short presentation, as they've been previously attacked by shorts, so the decision was to go for the Journal and go into a quiet period until it was issued.
At one year after their last Annual Meeting they knew the rules said an Annual Meeting should be set no more than a month later, but without the Journal they'd be unable to say practically anything, so they'd be facing hostile investors while asking for substantially more shares. I believe they knew that shareholders wouldn't vote against their best interests, but they also knew the audience would be hostile and the regulators would permit the delay, they chose to delay. Nothing changed by the end of the fiscal year and again the regulators aren't forcing the issue so once again they choose to delay.
I frankly don't know if the regulators would even accept delaying into the next year as long as shareholders don't sue forcing the issue. I would hope that no one does force the issue, with all the delay by management, I'd rather have a meeting where Investors were enthusiastic in attending because of the positive news rather than hostile because the company was standing on the quiet period all based on the initial decision nearly two years ago to go for the Journal.
Don't get me wrong, the decision to go for the Journal didn't slow down all the company needed to do for even a day. In fact, it's possible that management could spend more time on the development of the packages needed for regulatory approval, which must be considered their highest priority. Part of that effort was certainly qualified manufacturing capability, and again no time was being wasted in gaining approval of the FlaskWorks units and the rest of what's needed.
In short, management probably could have changed it's mind many times, but it hasn't, it's initial decision to go for the Journal is the choice that to this day has investors frustrated, but truly may result in the success all the longs are looking for in the long run. Others certainly would have handled this differently, but I believe the key is gaining regulatory approvals, and I don't believe that could have been accelerated at all, so their long term success would have been no greater. The short term prices will be forgotten once we have the approvals, just give it a chance to happen.
Gary
