Tasty, see below but in regards to your concern look at a calendar first. Then plug in the dates. With our votes we are seeking an adjournment followed by a nice chat where retail gets to ask questions, not Paul Choi or Jessica Fye. Wink.
Good post. Hope you vote no with us Sir.
TSS-TheSlominShield
I agree with much of your skepticism. Paul Choi’s questions on capital allocation and potential M&A were reasonable given the $308 million cash balance and current valuation, but management’s responses remained generic (“discussed regularly,” “opportunistic,” “holistic/strategic,” “report when tangible”). No timeline, no process update on Barclays, and no concrete capital-return path was provided.
The same pattern holds across the call and 10-Q: modest operational wins (U.S. branded scripts +17% YoY, new $2.8M ROW revenue, inventory down to $183.6M, positive cash flow) are welcome, but there was zero substantive disclosure on the Barclays strategic review, LREtEPA patent acceleration, EMT2 timeline, Lotus progress, or the broader global expansion strategy that Patrice Bonfiglio (Sarissa Partner and Board Member) highlighted in 2024 as a major value driver.
This is the core frustration. Sarissa took control in 2023 promising better execution and transparency than the prior regime. One year after Michael Torok joined on similar criticisms, retail still lacks visibility on the strategic items that will determine long-term value.
The May 13 AGM is our clearest, low-risk leverage point. Sarissa owns ~8%. Retail owns ~75%. Voting closes for most brokers on May 7.
Recommended plan:
• Withhold on all 7 director elections (including Torok)
• No on say-on-pay (8) and Proposals 9–12
• For on Proposal 13 (electronic delivery)
“Withhold” votes are treated as abstentions per the proxy — they create a visible public record without disrupting operations or the Barclays process. D.F. King provides near-real-time tabulations, so a strong retail turnout by May 7 will be seen immediately.
This is responsible ownership and accountability, not confrontation. After years of opportunity cost, we have every right to push for the transparency the current board promised.
Who else is voting this way? Let’s discuss constructively.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
