"Believe me a FULL 8 or 12 member Bod would cost us MUCH MORE in total."
Wrong... on all accounts...
First there is no way one can justify the BOD pay.. three times Walmart, double APPLE, 75% more GILD?
The opportunity cost of such an terrible BOD is virtually no institutional interest other than index funds... Lack of institutional interest has kept the share price low..
The BOD has a history of self dealing and running companies into the ground and really no success stories to speak of.. IMO I think this could be a major problem in partnering? My guess is any BP would not want these clowns around.
No one on the BOD has biotech experience...how would they know what any deal looks like yet alone a good deal? What we do know is they milk a cash starved biotech that has to sell shares for 20% of development costs in order to pay themselves double what Apple directors get.
There is a reason they don't want oversight... and it's not a good one.
CP Could not agree more with statement below but understand the anger/frustration the long term holders have.
I know why I stand behind this management: They stuck their necks out and provided PPHM with IP right that are crucial. Now that everything starts to come together and we have no more creditors, own our IP and pipelines 100% unencumbered and have a SUNRISE PIII trial close to approval, now we suddenly have a problem with compensation.
Believe me a FULL 8 or 12 member Bod would cost us MUCH MORE in total.
And even the staunchest of supporters such as yourself must be able to agree that a shareholder letter would do wonders for managements' wish to obtain yes votes on the Proxy.
CP, good post and you mentioned SK assigning his rights of the PS Targeting patents to PPHM rather than UTSW .. ?
One wild departure was Troy Luster whom is also on some PS Targeting patents with the late Dr. Phil Thorpe, so did Troy assign his over to PPHM as well ?