IMO you are wrong here several ways and for a couple of reasons. One, you assume some things about the presentation, one being that it would have been very simple to present essentially the same information more slickly as you proposed, and that would have minimized the negative impact of Sunday's presentation. I also felt a bit frustrated that they didn't give a clearer and concrete picture of what timeline to expect going forward. Honestly, for a short time, I even got angry - I have a bit of a temper, LOL. I admit it, I like your wordsmithing. But I'm not as sure that anybody should have been comfortable saying what you suggested. They are under legal constraints and you as a lawyer (if you are one) might suggest better words, but I'm not sure you have experience in guiding public companies in making such statements from the perspective of both SEC rules and FDA rules. Let's say you do, that still doesn't mean that their lawyers would give the same advice as you would.
Bashing them for their presentation imo oversimplifies the issues involved with disclosures. Also, what has changed and what impact does their presentation have besides provoking the usual panic of the weak hands? Yes, with the generous help of the shorts and some longs posting on this MB in support of panic selling, some longs did that on Monday. But on Tuesday we've recovered more than 50% of the dip. By the end of the week maybe we'll be back to .34, no change from last Friday. Where is the actual damage from what you critique as a faulty presentation?
Second, you should be aware of how wrong your critique of DI is. You know as well as I do that LG, even though he picked up his phone freely as time permitted him, and he was quite busy a lot of the time, even late at night, you and I both had the same experience in finding his responses frankly pretty useless. He had a standard rant that he would repeat at great length regardless of the question. I found that I could sometimes shout him down enough to get him to address my actual question or concern but mostly it was just so frustrating that I would not even want to try. You and I have discussed this and I know you experienced the same thing.
DI, of course, is going to mostly carefully repeat the company line but at least anyone can definitely have a meaningful conversation with him. He listens to questions fairly well and actually addresses the specific questions in a way I could never get LG to do. Prior to ASCO talked about where they were wrt the SAP. He didn't reveal any secrets but I took from what he said that in fact, the SAP was not complete. I think anybody could have gotten the same out of him.
Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that the reaction to Bosch's presentation would have been worse if Innes had not been talking to shareholders. I'm sure of that. And you know how bad LG was at IR so you really should know you are being ridiculous in saying Innes is no better. Innes is never going to override Linda or Les on the content of their presentations. But I know he's giving them good advice. Obviously not what you wanted to hear this time but so what. You have some good ideas but that doesn't mean that anybody who doesn't agree with you is a jackass. Even if they were, that's who we've got to run this ship. You keep predicting catastrophic failure in the pps, you say over and over that it's going to fall to .05. Yet I don't think you've sold. Something is wrong with that. I don't know why you preach deep doom and gloom if you don't really believe it enough to sell your shares.
You also have preached that the lower the pps goes in the interim, the lower the price will be on any bounce after topline data, also the lower any buyout offer will be. Yet you also assert that LP doesn't care at all about the pps. Taken together those 2 thoughts don't make sense. One obviously contradicts the other.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
